Boise Gets Minor Foul In ACHD Game

UPDATE 8/4/14
ACHD took a “time out” at the Monday noon meeting, voting to do nothing until Thursday when they will consider Boise’s request for a total of about 800 hockey-puck meter devices in the streets.

Fourth District Judge Deborah Bail blew the whistle on Boise for a minor penalty Friday in the ongoing hockey game between the City and Ada County Highway District over the parking meter “hockey pucks.”
Boise filed a motion Friday for a “temporary restraining order” to leave the hockey puck-parking meter sensors in the street. The judge promptly denied the motion citing numerous legal flaws in the City request. Her denial order may qualify as a “smack down” for the legal staff.

“The City of Boise City (“Boise”) has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order although it has not filed either the type of affidavit required by I.R.c.p. 65(b) nor has it filed an application’ petition or complaint as required by I.R.C.P. 3(a)( I ). Boise seeks to prevent the
removal of parking meter vehicle sensing devices by the Ada County Highway District

A temporary restraining order may only be granted if “it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or the party’s attomey can be heard in opposition.” I.R’C.P. 65(a). No verified complaint has been filed in conjunction with this motion. The Affidavit filed in this case attaches a series of emails from various parties but it
does not state the specific facts in the affiant’s personal knowledge which show that Boise is at risk of immediate or irreparable injury, or damage.

No application, petition or complaint has been filed in conjunction with the motion for a temporary restraining order. I.R.C.P. 3(a)( I ) states that “no claim, controversy or dispute may, be submitted to any court in the state for determination or judgment without filing a complaint or petition or application as provided in these rules….” while there is very old authority for the
proposition that an injunction could be issued before a complaint has been filed even though it could not take effect until the complaint had been filed, that decision was rendered decades before the Idaho Rules of civil procedure were enacted. see. Elmore County irrigated Farms Ass’nt. Stockslager.22Idaho 420, 126p.616(19r2). I.R.c.p. 3(a)( l ) requires the filing of a complaint, petition or application before any claim for injunctive relief can be pursued.

For both of these reasons, the motion for temporary restraining order is denied. The denial is without prejudice to Boise’s ability to address the deficiencies subsequently. The court also notes that the preference in r.R.C.p. 65(b) is that opposing party should be given notice and an opportunity to address the court where feasible. The motion is denied without prejudice.”

Comments & Discussion

Comments are closed for this post.

  1. Time to grab the popcorn and watch the B rated movie that us stupid tax payers are paying for.

  2. Time for the candidates for ACHD to step up and comment specifically. And I don’t mean “The City and ACHD should collaborate on projects rather than be contentious, and I will work hard toward that end.” There is plenty of blame to go around here. I think most lies with the City, but I could be wrong.

  3. Mitchell A. Jaurena
    Aug 3, 2014, 4:10 pm

    Because of the potential lawsuit and the attempt at litigation by the City, it would be inappropriate to comment specifically, but do know this: I met with members of the City Council twice and the Mayor three separate times in an sincere attempt to avoid litigation wasting taxpayers money. I offered very generous terms so the City could keep the sensors already in the roadway and install the remaining sensors they have already bought…..a complete agreement for those 200 and was rebuffed at every offer. I have tried at every turn to avoid litigation and tried to come to an agreement, yet the City has refused to sign any agreement that has been offered. It takes two to come to an agreement.

    EDITOR NOTE–Thanks, Commissioner Jaurena for your comment.

  4. That is good that Commissioner Jaurena post a comment here.

    It’s also telling in the manner of the post:

    “I offered (MY TERMS) and they refused.”
    That reminds me of the Israel/Hammas conflict.

    In the interest of fairplay- C. Jaurena, why does ACHD not accept what the City wants?

  5. Mitchell A. Jaurena
    Aug 4, 2014, 8:36 pm

    The terms offered were on behalf of the Commission, they were not my terms, even though I was personally negotiating with members of Boise City Council and the Mayor. I was hoping to be able to reach middle ground, something that would allow us(Boise and ACHD) to compromise and fore go litigation. But a compromise takes two willing parties. Compromise: a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

  6. ACHD is the only force keeping Team-Dave from going full-obamacommie in Boise. Keep up the good work!

  7. So Jaurena lets hear the deals offered.

  8. Yes,Commissioner we understand it is not YOUR terms, and you speak on behalf of the Commission.

    So why does ACHD not accept what the City wants?
    Or how about, What is so bad with what the city wants?

  9. And nothing from the candidates.

Get the Guardian by email

Enter your email address: