On June 30, 2021 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bird Rides Inc.,
and
City Of Santa Monica,
Lyft Inc.,
Skinny Labs Inc.,
Veoride Inc.,
Wheels Labs Inc.,
for Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
FILED
BIRD RIDES, INC. v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA Superior Court of California
c
Case Number: 21STCP02077 acu Pe Andeles
Hearing Date: July 30, 2621 AUG 02 2021
Sherri R. Carter, Executive Offizer/Clerk of Dourt
ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION By: F. Becerra, Jr., Deputy
From 2018 through Juire 30, 2022, Petitioner, Bird Rides, Inc. \Bird), operated a fleet of e-
scooters n the City of Santa Monica along with three other ccmpanies, Lime, Lyft, Inc. and
Jump. At that time, the City issued operation p2rmits to the companies through the City’s
Shared Nobility Device Pilot Program.
On January 28, 2020, the City established its Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program
(Second Program) with a delayed commencement date of July 1, 2021. The City declined to
issue Birc a permit tc operate its e-scooter fleet in the Secord Program.
In this action, Bird challenges the City’s failu-e co issue it an operation permit. Bird now seeks a
preliminary injunction erjoining the City from any act prohibiting Bird from operating its
existing e-scooter fleet ir the City. A preliminary injunction, according to Bird, will maintain the
status quo allowing it to continue to provide its flee: of e-scacters within the City.?
Respondent, the City, cpdoses the motion. Fermit holders under the Second Program, Real
Parties in Interest, Skinny Labs Inc. dba Spin (Spin), Lyft, Wh2els Labs, Inc. (Wheels) and
VeoRide, Inc., each separately oppose Bird’s motion.
The request for a preliminary injunction is DEN ED.
LEGAL STANDARD
The standards goverring a preliminary injunction are well known. “[A] court will deny a
preliminary injunction unless there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will be
successful on the merits, but the granting of a preliminary irjunction do2s not amount to an
adjudication of the merits.” (Beehan v. Lido tsle Community Assn. (1977} 70 Cal.App.3d 858,
866.) “The function of é freliminary injunction s the preservation of the status quo until a final
determination of the merits.” (/bid.)
As the parties recognize, “Trial courts traditionally consider and weigh two factors in
determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. They are (1) how likely it is that the
‘As notec by Wheels Labs, Inc. during argurr ent, Bird’s request to remove allegedly shared
mobility cevices that it al eges are illegal to operate on public streets wes not properly noticed.
The court agrees.
Pege 1 of 13
Document Filed Date
August 02, 2021
Case Filing Date
June 30, 2021
Category
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 10/28/2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED BIRD RIDES, INC. v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA Superior Court of California c Case Number: 21STCP02077 acu Pe Andeles Hearing Date: July 30, 2621 AUG 02 2021 Sherri R. Carter, Executive Offizer/Clerk of Dourt ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION By: F. Becerra, Jr., Deputy From 2018 through Juire 30, 2022, Petitioner, Bird Rides, Inc. \Bird), operated a fleet of e- scooters n the City of Santa Monica along with three other ccmpanies, Lime, Lyft, Inc. and Jump. At that time, the City issued operation p2rmits to the companies through the City’s Shared Nobility Device Pilot Program. On January 28, 2020, the City established its Second Shared Mobility Device Pilot Program (Second Program) with a delayed commencement date of July 1, 2021. The City declined to issue Birc a permit tc operate its e-scooter fleet in the Secord Program. In this action, Bird challenges the City’s failu-e co issue it an operation permit. Bird now seeks a preliminary injunction erjoining the City from any act prohibiting Bird from operating its existing e-scooter fleet ir the City. A preliminary injunction, according to Bird, will maintain the status quo allowing it to continue to provide its flee: of e-scacters within the City.? Respondent, the City, cpdoses the motion. Fermit holders under the Second Program, Real Parties in Interest, Skinny Labs Inc. dba Spin (Spin), Lyft, Wh2els Labs, Inc. (Wheels) and VeoRide, Inc., each separately oppose Bird’s motion. The request for a preliminary injunction is DEN ED. LEGAL STANDARD The standards goverring a preliminary injunction are well known. “[A] court will deny a preliminary injunction unless there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will be successful on the merits, but the granting of a preliminary irjunction do2s not amount to an adjudication of the merits.” (Beehan v. Lido tsle Community Assn. (1977} 70 Cal.App.3d 858, 866.) “The function of é freliminary injunction s the preservation of the status quo until a final determination of the merits.” (/bid.) As the parties recognize, “Trial courts traditionally consider and weigh two factors in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. They are (1) how likely it is that the ‘As notec by Wheels Labs, Inc. during argurr ent, Bird’s request to remove allegedly shared mobility cevices that it al eges are illegal to operate on public streets wes not properly noticed. The court agrees. Pege 1 of 13