
    RENATO PISTOLESI, ALLTOW, INC., Action Automotive Collision & Mechanical Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Carl CALABRESE, individually, Martin Novick, individually, Matthew Alexander, individually, Jennifer Niznik, individually, Paul Italiano, individually, Alan Weitlich, individually, John Visentin, Village of Wappingers Falls, Denise Calabrese, Defendants-Appellees, Brian Smith, individually, Josh Kemlage, individually, J. Erns, individually, Sean McNeil, individually, M.A. Rodriguez, individually, Rafael Torres, individually, P. Capparelli, individually, Mark Libermann, individually, Mark Kemlage, individually, Defendants.
    17-956
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    January 24, 2018
    FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN, Sussman & Associates, Goshen, NY.
    FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: MONTGOMERY L. EFFINGER, O’Con-nor, McGuinness, Conte, Doyle, Oleson, Watson & Loftus, LLP, White Plains, NY.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PETER W. HALL, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

This challenge to the denial of an injunction ordering the Village of Wappingers Falls (“the Village”) to reinstate one of the plaintiff companies (“Action”) to the Village’s rotational tow list returns to us following a remand that instructed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Aspen, J.) to “reconsider Action’s request” in light of our disagreement with the court’s conclusion that such an injunction would constitute impermissible retroactive relief. Pistolesi v. Calabrese, 666 Fed.Appx. 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing Dwyer v. Regan, 777 F.2d 825, 836 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that reinstatement constitutes prospective relief)). Our order of remand “express[ed] no opinion on the merits of Action’s request.” Id. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“[I]f an [entity] claims [that a] federal law immunizes [it] from [a] state regulation, [a federal] court may issue an injunction upon finding the state regulation] [ ] preempted.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 1384, 191 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908)). However, a court presented with a request for injunc-tive relief must determine whether — in view of equitable considerations and any applicable statutory limitations — the particular injunction sought “is an appropriate remedy to be granted” in that case. Dwyer, 777 F.2d at 836.

Prior to the remand, Action successfully petitioned the district court for a declaratory judgment that Requirement 4 of the Village’s tow-list guidelines was preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), and for an injunction barring the Village from enforcing that requirement. See Armstrong, 135 S.Ct. at 1384 (“[I]n a proper case, relief may be given in a court of equity ... to prevent an injurious act by a [local official].” (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). On remand, the district court denied the additional injunc-tive relief that Action had requested — reinstatement to the tow list — on the ground that it would not be “an appropriate remedy.” Dwyer, 777 F.2d at 836. The court reasoned that Action’s request amounted to an attempt to enforce § 14501(c)(1), which does not give rise to a private right of action. See Armstrong, 135 S.Ct. at 1385 (a party “cannot, by invoking [a federal court’s] equitable powers, circumvent Congress’s exclusion of private enforcement”); see also W. Air Lines, Inc, v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 817 F.2d 222, 225 (2d Cir. 1987) (“A claim under the Supremacy Clause that a federal law preempts a state regulation is distinct from a claim for enforcement of that federal law.”).

We review the district court’s denial of the requested injunction for abuse of discretion. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). We are “free to affirm” the court’s conclusion that court-ordered reinstatement would be inappropriate in this case “on any ground that finds support in the record.” Brown Media Corp. v. K&L Gates, LLP, 854 F.3d 150, 160 n.6 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Headley v. Tilghman, 53 F.3d 472, 476 (2d Cir. 1995)). We affirm on the ground that Action can point to no “irreparable injury” — traceable to (or likely to result from) the preempted local rule — that warrants reinstatement. eBay, 547 U.S. at 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837.

Requirement 4, which barred from admission to the tow list any “applicant[ ]” operating on the “same premises or real property” as “another Tow Rotation Service,” was enacted after Action had already been removed from the tow list. App’x at 97. It was therefore not the cause of Action’s removal. Nor was Requirement 4 ever the basis for denying Action admission to the tow list; Action did not apply for admission during the time in which Requirement 4 was in effect, and it has not applied for admission in the nearly three years since Requirement 4 was declared preempted.

To the extent that Action’s request for reinstatement is predicated on the belief that it will be unlawfully denied admission on the basis of Requirement 4, see Armstrong, 135 S.Ct. at 1384 (“[F]ederal courts may in some circumstances grant injunc-tive relief against [local officials] who are ... planning to violate[ ] federal law.”), it has already received the relief to which it is entitled. The Village is enjoined from enforcing Requirement.4. And in the event that the Village violates that injunction, the district court has ample power to enforce it.

Action therefore fails to identify a past or future injury that warrants the additional relief it requests. Accordingly, that relief was properly denied.

We have considered Action’s arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the order of the district court. 
      
      . We note that Action has only pursued this action against the local officials in their individual, rather than official, capacities. Thus, in the event that the Village cites Requirement 4 to prevent Action from re-joining the list and Action seeks to enforce the injunction, the district court should consider whether further injunctive relief would be proper against the local officials in this case.
     