BLOCKTREE PROPERTIES LLC LLC 509 LLC MIM LLC LLC LLP v. PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO OF GRANT COUNTY WASHINGTON 10 PUD (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs-Appellants Blocktree Properties, LLC; Cytline, LLC; 509 Mine, LLC; MIM Investors, LLC; Miners United, LLC; Mark Vargas; and WeHash Technology, LLC, are a group of technology firms and an individual that provide verification and security services for blockchain-based cryptocurrencies. Defendants are Grant County Public Utility District No. 2, its Commissioners, and staff (collectively, “the District”), which provide electricity to, among others, the plaintiffs. The District recently promulgated a new, more expensive electrical rate class for “Evolving Industries” (“RS-17”) and applied it to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction barring implementation of RS-17 for the duration of this litigation. Because plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm, the court affirms this denial.

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). Simple monetary harm does not constitute an immediate threat of irreparable harm. L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir. 1980). Although a legitimate threat that a company might face bankruptcy or be driven out of business may constitute irreparable harm, see Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 932, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975); Am. Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Comm’ns, Inc., 750 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1985), plaintiffs here failed to introduce anything other than conclusory declarations to support their claim that RS-17 would drive them out of business or cause them to suffer harm beyond monetary damages. Thus, the district court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction motion.

Although it does not alter our affirmance, we note that the district court overread Yakama Nation v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant Cty., Wash., 101 FERC ¶ 61,197 (2002), 2002 WL 31990298. While not entirely clear, Yakama Nation is best read as holding that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has no jurisdiction to enforce Section 20 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 813, over Grant County, rather than holding that Section 20 does not apply to Grant County. Id. ¶ 19.

AFFIRMED.