A judge has denied a request by Waymo LLC to stay his enforcement of his recent issuance of a ban pending trial of overnight recharging operations at two Santa Monica lots until after the company’s appeal is ruled upon.
On Friday, Santa Monica Superior Court Judge Bradley S. Phillips said the Waymo attorneys’ stay request relied primarily on a company marketing employee whose declaration appeared to be hearsay.
“It presents no new facts that change the court’s assessment of either (the city of Santa Monica’s) likelihood of success on the merits, the presence of grave or irreparable harm to Waymo or the balance of hardships,” the judge wrote.
In their court papers, Waymo lawyers contended that in the short time since the July 27 handing down of the injunction, thousands of people in the Southland who rely on Waymo vehicles are already feeling the effects.
“The loss of the right to operate overnight at the Broadway lots, a vital charging hub in Waymo’s transportation network, has already caused sweeping, irrevocable harm and will continue to do so,” Waymo lawyers argued in their pleadings.
In the alternative, Waymo asked the judge for a short-term stay while Waymo pursued a different court of action in the Second District Court of Appeal with a “writ of supersedeas” rather than a regular time-consuming appeal. A “writ of supersedeas” is a special order issued by an appellate court to pause or stop the enforcement of a lower court’s judgment or order while an appeal is ongoing.
In his July 27 order, the judge said Waymo is prevented, pending trial, from operating the Broadway Lots between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. According to the city’s court papers, residents were disturbed by Waymo lot workers talking in the middle of the night as well as the sounds of the Waymo vehicles, which the city contends “echo off buildings along the alleys like a canyon.”
Repeated requests from the city to Waymo to abate the problems were rejected, the city alleged.
Waymo has appealed Phillips’ order. In its own lawsuit filed against the city, Waymo denies a public nuisance existed and contends the company hired more staff, implemented software updates to reduce noise levels and frequencies, installed light and noise barriers and modified “vehicle behaviors” in the area.
Waymo also contended the nuisance was actually created by local residents’ interference with the company’s operations during the relevant hours.