Win against City of Philadelphia. There is an old saying, you can’t beat City Hall. A retired client who was trying to enjoy his golden years in the backdrop of a worldwide pandemic was informed by the City of Philadelphia that they were going to tear down his childhood home.
The City claimed that the client had let the home turn into a dangerous condition and moved to demolish the house. Client knew it was time to bring the legal team of Kenny, Burns & McGill to fight City Hall. Kenny, Burns & McGill is a firm that focuses on commercial litigation, personal injury and criminal defense. Its legal team has over one hundred years of experience fighting for clients. Win against City of Philadelphia. An excerpt from Kenny, Burns & McGill’s arguments follow:
KENNY, BURNS & MCGILL
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 520
1500 JFK BLVD.
Phila., PA 19102
(215)423-5500
(215)231-9847
[email protected]
A.H. : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
:
:
v. : November Term 2020
:
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. :
: No.:
:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Plaintiff, by its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in support of its Petition for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction.
A.H., (hereinafter “H/Plaintiff”) is an adult individual residing at Philadelphia Pa 191__.
The City of Philadelphia, Department of License and Inspection, (hereinafter, “City/Defendant”) is a body corporate and politic which exercises the public powers of the City of Philadelphia as an agency and instrumentality with its principal office located at 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, Pa 19102.
FACTS
Mr. H owns the property known at 1708 N. ___ Street, in the City and County of Philadelphia. Mr. H has recently become aware that the Defendant declared his property “imminently dangerous” and on this day November 12, 2020 issued a demolition permit #CF-2020-075___. See “A” of Complaint, collectively. Mr. H has not received any notice from the Defendant. He was only made aware of a recent posting on his property at 1708 N. ___ Street.
Mr. H is in the process of obtaining a make safe permit and wishes to make the necessary repairs needed to repair his property. Moreover, the City took the outrageous measure of declaring 1708 N. ___ Street dangerous without providing Mr. H any notice and has not allowed Mr. H to conduct his own professional engineering review. Plaintiff is promptly appealing any adverse action issued by the Licenses and Inspections in regards to this property.
Plaintiff has retained a construction/structural engineering expert who, upon information and belief, will make sure the subject property is safe and not “imminently dangerous”.
A. ARGUMENT
Injunctive Relief is appropriate where:
The injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages;Greater injury would result by refusing the injunction than by granting it;The injunction restores the parties to the status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrong conduct.
See Valley Forge Historical Society v. Washington Memorial Chapel, 493 Pa. 491,500, 426 A.2d 1123, 1128 (1981); John G. Bryant Co. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc.,471 Pa. 1,7, 369 A.2d 1164, 1167 (1977). Each of these elements compels that injunctive relief be entered in favor of Plaintiff.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff faces immediate and Irreparable Harm if Defendant is not compelled to: Suspend/cancel Demo Permit #CF-2020-075___;Remove all Stop Work Orders posted on 1708 N. ___ Street and allow Plaintiff to make the property safe himself;Remove “imminent dangerous” placard on 1708 N. ___ Street;Remove any and all code enforcement violations placed upon 1708 N. ___ Street;Any other relief deemed just.Greater Injury will be suffered by Plaintiff were Injunctive Relief not to be Granted in Plaintiffs favor than will result to Defendant by GrantingDefendant’s requested relief.Granting Injunctive Relief will preserve the prior status quo.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief. This relief is necessary to prevent continued Irreparable harm to Plaintiff that cannot be compensated by damages. Greater injury would result to Plaintiff if such relief were denied than would be suffered by Defendant if such relief were granted. The relief Plaintiff seeks places the parties in the exact positions they would have been had Defendant not committed the above listed infractions.
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order granting Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Respectfully submitted,
KENNY, BURNS & MCGILL
By:
Thomas D. Kenny, Esquire and Eileen T. Burns
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dated:
After numerous court hearings, attorney Burns settled the matter with the City which led to the Honorable Court on December 16, 2020 agreeing to a final order which GRANTED Mr. H’s request and saved his property from demolition. If you want to fight City Hall, think Kenny, Burns & McGill to help you in your battle. Win against City of Philadelphia.
/**/
/**/
By
Kenny, Burns & McGill
|
Published
December 21, 2020
|
Posted in
Civil Litigation
|
Tagged civil lawyers, commercial litigation lawyers, fight city hall lawyers, injunction lawyers, trial lawyers, TRO lawyers
