My company has been sued a few times for slip and fall type stuff but I have never in my life been the plaintiff in a legal action. As is perhaps appropriate given my political leanings, my first ever suit was against the the Federal government, specifically against the Forest Service seeking an injunction against their closure of the campgrounds we operate in the recent shutdown.
Unfortunately, the case reached the court on the day the shutdown lifted, but the judge was still very helpful in giving the Forest Service a swift kick in the butt to hurry them along so they didn't drag their feet reopening us.,
I had feared that we would lose the opportunity to set a precedent. Since the shutdown was over I though the Court might consider this issue moot. But apparently one can continue with such litigation to set a precedent if there is reason to think the circumstances will recur. And the government attorney was kind enough to make a statement right in the court transcript (granted in context of a different argument) that this same shutdown situation is likely to reoccur as soon as early next year.
The good news is that we appear to have an argument that the Court is willing to entertain. In fact, the statement below was a statement by the judge in the hearing (it's from the hearing transcript and Q&A with the government attorney and not from any official opinion). It is not in any way binding but it gives us some confidence to try to proceed to get a ruling on the legality of our closure now, so we have it in our pocket for next time. Here is the Court's statement, addressing the government attorney:
Well, the basic problem is that the Forest Service never should have closed these that were permitted properties. And they in fact violated the agreement they had with these plaintiffs in doing so without necessity and determining they had a right to do so, which I don't think they did....
[the Forest Service has] nothing to do with the administration and management of the campgrounds other than the inspections at any given time.
So, what they have done is unreasonably close these parks, preventing the concessioners who pay a premium in order to get this permit and lease the property under the requirements in this permit -- and the Forest Service was very ill-advised to make the decision to close these grounds under these circumstances, where you have given up the maintenance and administration of these campsites.
I understand the overall obligation for public safety, but you have delegated that to private entities. And you took it away when it wasn't costing you a dollar to leave it as was. And in fact, that's where we get into the restraint of trade and the fact that there are losses which are most likely uncompensatable.
By the way the case was National Forest Recreation Association et. al. vs. Tom Tidwell. My company, among others, was al.