FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 05 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BLOCKTREE PROPERTIES, LLC, a No. 19-35277
Washington limited liability company;
CYTLINE, LLC, a Delaware D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00390-RMP
limited liability company; 509 MINE,
LLC, a Washington limited liability
company; MIM INVESTORS, LLC, a MEMORANDUM*
Washington limited liability company;
MINERS UNITED, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company;
MARK VARGAS, an
individual; WEHASH
TECHNOLOGY, LLP, a Washington
limited liability company;
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 2 OF
GRANT COUNTY WASHINGTON, a
Washington municipal corporation;
TERRY BREWER, individually and in his
official capacity; BOB BERND,
individually and in his official capacity;
DALE WALKER, individually and in his
official capacity; TOM FLINT,
individually and in his official capacity;
LARRY SCHAAPMAN, individually and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
in his official capacity; DOES 1-10,
managers and employees of Grant PUD,
individually and in their official capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 23, 2019
Seattle, Washington
Before: IKUTA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District Judge.
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
**
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2
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 (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 (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
3
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.
4