CRESCENT BAR – U.S. District Court Judge Justin Quackenbush of Spokane issued a preliminary injunction Thursday afternoon to maintain the “status quo” on Crescent Bar Island until he lifts it, which he indicated will be after the legal dispute between the island residents and the Grant County PUD is resolved.

The order applies to all lands involved in the leases between the PUD, the Port of Quincy and Crescent Bar Inc. on and off the islands. It also applies to persons or entities living or doing business on those properties.

The order makes it impossible for the PUD to charge the Port, and thereby CBI, increased rental rates it planned to start charging in June. Quackenbush even appeared to scold the PUD for presuming it could do so in a letter to the Port dated Feb. 28.

If the PUD was going to be forced to accept the residents beyond June 1, then the PUD intended to charge the Port $2,800 a month for each condo unit and $1,700 for each RV pad and force the Port to pass the charges on to the CBI.

Quackenbush said: “While there is nothing wrong with advising a party of the PUD's legal position, ignoring that there is ongoing litigation and conducting itself as if the merits of this case have already been decided in its favor is inappropriate. This type of conduct also tends to create aggravation rather than move the dispute toward an appropriate resolution.”

The CBI pays $13,632.27 to the Port quarterly, and that is what it will pay until the litigation is concluded, Quackenbush ordered. Before the lawsuit, the islanders offered to raise the rent to $1 million a year in exchange for the right to stay on the island. The PUD turned that offer down.

In addition to not being able to collect new rents, the PUD's costs regarding the case will continue to mount. It noted it has spent $77,000 so far on work related to the turning over of documents to lawyers for the residents. It estimates there are still 2,200 to be reviewed and turned over. It has not stated the cost for legal fees.

In another setback for the PUD, Quackenbush said the duration of the injunction “will not be tied” to arbitration proceedings the PUD is seeking. So far, the residents have rejected arbitration.

Quackenbush found there could be irreparable harm to the islanders in the absence of an injunction. He did not find the same for the PUD with the imposition of an injunction.

Quackenbush said that to merit an injunction the plaintiffs needed to (1) establish likely success on the merits; (2) likely irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the plaintiffs' favor; (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.

“Pending a determination of the merits of Plaintiffs' claims herein,” Quackenbush said, “the PUD, Port, Crescent Bar Inc., their agents, servants, employees, representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them are enjoined from terminating the existing leases; evicting, disturbing the peace and quiet enjoyment of, or engaging in any other conduct that directly or indirectly adversely impacts the quiet enjoyment, use or possession of the Port, Crescent Bar Inc., Plaintiffs, or other Crescent Bar Inc. leaseholders.”

Once again, in this order, Quackenbush seemed to empathize with the islanders' case, writing: “For forty years, the defendants observed and apparently encouraged the development of the island. Not until 2010 did the PUD shift its position...Given the great potential impact of eviction and the promises made by defendants regarding an extension to 2023, the proposed injunction should have been a clearly predicted consequence...”