## Facts

- Alfred Boyajian raised and bred exotic wild cats at his home in Atlanta, Georgia, describing the activity as a conservation-focused hobby.
- Neighbors complained to the City of Atlanta about Boyajian’s animals and related activity at the residence.
- The City cited Boyajian for violating two city ordinances: (1) an ordinance restricting use of an accessory structure in a residential zoning district and (2) an ordinance barring operation of a business without a required license.
- Rather than contest the municipal citations in the citation proceedings, Boyajian filed a federal declaratory-judgment action seeking a permanent injunction to stop the City from enforcing the ordinances against him.
- Boyajian also sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement while the case proceeded and asked the court to consolidate the preliminary-injunction hearing with a trial on the merits.
- The City moved to dismiss, arguing the case should not proceed in federal court and challenging Boyajian’s entitlement to injunctive relief at this stage.

## Issues

1. Whether Boyajian satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the challenged ordinances while his declaratory and injunctive claims were litigated.
2. Whether the City’s motion to dismiss should be granted at the pleadings stage.
3. Whether the court should consolidate the preliminary-injunction hearing with the trial on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2).

## Decision

- The court granted Boyajian’s motion for a preliminary injunction, temporarily prohibiting the City from enforcing the challenged ordinances against him during the litigation.
- The court denied Boyajian’s motion to consolidate the preliminary-injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, concluding the case required further development before final adjudication.
- The court denied the City’s motion to dismiss (at least as to the claims supporting preliminary relief), allowing the action to go forward.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring the movant to show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent injunctive relief, (3) that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the harm the injunction would cause the opposing party, and (4) that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.
- When a plaintiff shows a likely violation of First Amendment rights, courts commonly treat the resulting loss of protected freedoms as irreparable injury for purposes of interim relief.
- In assessing likelihood of success and the balance of harms, a court may consider whether enforcement would effectively force the plaintiff to stop the challenged conduct before the court can resolve the constitutional and statutory questions raised.
- Consolidation under Rule 65(a)(2) is discretionary and may be denied when a preliminary record and expedited hearing are not an adequate substitute for full discovery and a merits record.

## Conclusion

In *Boyajian v. City of Atlanta*, the federal district court granted a preliminary injunction preventing Atlanta from enforcing zoning and business-licensing ordinances against a homeowner who bred and raised wild cats, finding interim relief warranted under the traditional four-factor test; the court declined to consolidate the injunction hearing with a final trial and denied the City’s motion to dismiss so the case could proceed on a fuller record.


Boyajian v. City of Atlanta, 2009 WL 4797206 (2009)