The Chainlink

NIMBYs invalidate my newly purchased Divvy membership

I'd been waiting to get my Divvy membership until stations popped up near me. I work in the suburbs, not downtown, so I mainly want a membership in order to more easily get to and from the train on those days when I don't feel like riding 22 miles roundtrip to work.

I finally bought my membership on Monday when I saw new stations opening up closer and closer to me. I was thrilled earlier today to read on Divvy's Twitter feed that a station is going up very close to me, on Addison and Pine Grove.

And then I read this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-divvy-bike-sharing-lawsuit-2....

I'm furious. What can I (we) do to counter these NIMBY types? I think it's entirely unfair that a couple of cranky people can ruin bikeshare for my neighborhood.

Views: 5190

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 23, 2013 at 12:02pm

Chicago Daily Law Bulletin picked this up yesterday.  There is a hearing scheduled today at 2:00 p.m. on the petition for temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.  Anyone with time on their hands could go to courtroom 2502, Daley Center, Judge Kathleen Kennedy presiding, to see what happens. 

 

Permalink Reply by Sean Phalen on August 23, 2013 at 2:59pm
 4m

Injunction against city to have Divvy station at Pine Grove/Addison removed was just denied.

20m

Judge ruled the plaintiff didn't state a clearly ascertainable right in need of protection, noting that the city controls use of the streets

Permalink Reply by Duppie on August 23, 2013 at 3:03pm

What does this mean for the overall case, exactly?

Any of the resident judicial experts want to chime in?

Sean Phalen said:

 4m

Injunction against city to have Divvy station at Pine Grove/Addison removed was just denied.

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 23, 2013 at 3:04pm

Not really a surprise.  This does not mean the lawsuit is over.  It only means that the plaintiff/petitioner did not meet the elements necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction. 

Permalink Reply by Sean Phalen on August 23, 2013 at 3:12pm

This reporter () that writes for the Chicago daily law bulletin tweeted that the city said it would cost $5000 to move the station.

Permalink Reply by Christine (5.0) on August 23, 2013 at 3:27pm

Thanks for the link!

Oh, and here is that fellow complaining on the Divvy page: https://www.facebook.com/DivvyBikes/posts/500657503337595

Edit: Haha, he deleted his comment.  Silly man.

Sean Phalen said:

This reporter () that writes for the Chicago daily law bulletin tweeted that the city said it would cost $5000 to move the station.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on August 23, 2013 at 3:28pm

Often true.

AM 9.5 said:

When you represent yourself pro se you have a fool for a client.
 
Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

Also notable that the attorney president of the condominium association filed the lawsuit in the name of a corporation pro se which means no attorney filed the lawsuit.  Corporations need attorneys to file lawsuits.

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 23, 2013 at 3:29pm

According to the court docket, the case has a status hearing date of September 24.  The order says:

"This matter coming before the court on Plaintiff's verified complaint and request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO), the parties appearing in court, and the court having heard oral argument,

It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO) is denied because Plaintiff has not stated a clearly ascertainable right justifying injunctive relief or protection and therefore cannot succeed on the merits.  Court finds no reason to address the other requirements of a TRO. . . ."

TRO is temporary restraining order

Permalink Reply by Duppie on August 23, 2013 at 3:42pm

Thanks for the explanation and detail!

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

According to the court docket, the case has a status hearing date of September 24.  The order says:

"This matter coming before the court on Plaintiff's verified complaint and request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO), the parties appearing in court, and the court having heard oral argument,

It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO) is denied because Plaintiff has not stated a clearly ascertainable right justifying injunctive relief or protection and therefore cannot succeed on the merits.  Court finds no reason to address the other requirements of a TRO. . . ."

TRO is temporary restraining order

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on August 23, 2013 at 3:44pm

One element to all injunctions is irreparable harm.  That is a showing that without the injunction the party seeking relief would be harmed and this harm could not be remedied.   Thus, for example, one can get an injunction (with other cause) to keep the City from cutting down an old tree.   One has a lot more trouble getting an injunction to keep the city from freezing a bank account.   If you win, you can get the money (plus compensation for the time that you didn't have control of the money).   I don't see what the irreparable harm would be?  If they win, the Divvy station will be moved and all will be returned to the status quo. 

Mind you lots of other reasons also would go against a successful injunction....

Permalink Reply by Davo on August 23, 2013 at 4:25pm

So because the suit was really really vague in what damages were done the judge dismissed it. But they still can bring up more specifics to justify there case at a later date. Thats my understanding. It just sucks that because this "lawyer" didn't have his crap together he will be costing the city more time and money listening to his "case".

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

According to the court docket, the case has a status hearing date of September 24.  The order says:

"This matter coming before the court on Plaintiff's verified complaint and request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO), the parties appearing in court, and the court having heard oral argument,

It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO) is denied because Plaintiff has not stated a clearly ascertainable right justifying injunctive relief or protection and therefore cannot succeed on the merits.  Court finds no reason to address the other requirements of a TRO. . . ."

TRO is temporary restraining order

Permalink Reply by Lisa Curcio on August 23, 2013 at 6:00pm

No, it is not dismissed.  The petition for temporary restraining order was denied.  jAnd it had nothing to do with damages.  The court found that they had not stated a right to relief.  That is not the same as damages.


Davo said:

So because the suit was really really vague in what damages were done the judge dismissed it. But they still can bring up more specifics to justify there case at a later date. Thats my understanding. It just sucks that because this "lawyer" didn't have his crap together he will be costing the city more time and money listening to his "case".

Lisa Curcio 6.5 mi said:

According to the court docket, the case has a status hearing date of September 24.  The order says:

"This matter coming before the court on Plaintiff's verified complaint and request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO), the parties appearing in court, and the court having heard oral argument,

It is hereby ordered that Plaintiff's request for emergency injunctive relief (TRO) is denied because Plaintiff has not stated a clearly ascertainable right justifying injunctive relief or protection and therefore cannot succeed on the merits.  Court finds no reason to address the other requirements of a TRO. . . ."

TRO is temporary restraining order

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service