A hearing was held on Dec. 18th in the 2nd Judicial District Court of Nevada regarding the Lawsuit filed by a group of Somersett residents alleging unlawful actions on the part of the SOA Board in conducting the CC&R Amendment Vote and SGCC Purchase Agreement Vote. The purpose of the hearing was to determine Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction which would extend the provisions of the Temporary Restraining Order until disposition of the case on its merits at trial.
Note: See previous CC&R Amendment and SGCC Purchase Agreement Restraining Order Somersett United Blog post dated December 12.
The Judge denied the motion for preliminary injunction on the basis the Plaintiffs did not demonstrate sufficient irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction was not issued. . The Order states:
“the Court has difficulty in recognizing irreparable harm as a result of defendant’s actions” and that “the Court is convinced that a monetary award can adequately compensate the plaintiffs should they prevail on their claims”.
However, in issuing the Order, the Court also made the following findings with respect to Nevada law, stating in his Order:
“There is reasonable probability that the Plaintiffs will prevail on most of their claims for relief since it is apparent that the Board did not follow the requirements of NRS116.31035 nor NRS116. 311(9) as they pertained to the vote on the CC&R Amendment, and the Board was less than straightforward in regards to the Statute’s requirements with regards to the opposing views to the purchase. The response of the Board to the plaintiffs’ repeated requests for equal time to present their positions, in the Court’s opinion, was disingenuous, apparently done with the goal of obviating opposition to the amendments”.
To read the Order in its entirety, one may click on the following link