Injunctions Flashcards
(13 cards)
Permanent Injunction
Case Law of when Permanent Injunction is appropriate
Is a court order issued after trial on the merits and commands the losing party to cease engaging in condcut the court has deemed illegal.
Walgreens case - when damages are difficult or hard to calculate a permament injunction might be a more appropriate remedy
Provisional Injunctions
2 types
Provisional injunctions are temporary in that they hold the status quo in place until the end of trial. In discussing permanent injunctions, one concern is that provisional injunctions will be vacated at the end of the litigation. The reason one mentions that the defendant’s action will begin again is that provisional injunctions halt his conduct during the time of litigation.
- Temporary Restraining order
- Preliminary Injunctions
Temporary Restraining Order
Can be issued immediately after suit has been filed and ordinarily lasts until the plaintiff can obtain a hearing on her motion for a preliminary injunction.
Fed Rule 65; 14 day with one renewal allowed for good cause.
TRO by State Court limited to 14 days
Duration and Extension of a TRO 🗓️
- A TRO, including an ex parte TRO, lasts14 days.
- It can be extended for another 14 days withgood cause.????
- 28 daysis the maximum duration without the other party’s consent.
Federal Rule on Counting Days:If a TRO is issued on January 1st, the 14-day period begins on January 2nd and ends on January 15th. To extend, file a motion before the end of January 15th. Seeking the other party’s consent increases the chance of an extension. After a 14-day TRO and a scheduled preliminary injunction hearing, the opposing side may be more willing to extend the TRO since both sides need time to prepare for the hearing.
4 factor test for Preeliminary Injunctions
Case Law?
For Federal and 5th Circuit (Texas)
Both TROs and preliminary injunctions are determined by afour-factor test, which considers the following factors:
- Likelihood of success on the merits: The party requesting the injunction must show that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case.
- Irreparable harm: The party requesting the injunction must show that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
- Balance of equities: The court must balance the equities between the parties and consider whether the harm to the party requesting the injunction outweighs the harm to the other party.
- Public interest: The court must consider whether the granting of the injunction is in the public interest.
Winter Decison: prior to this case fed cases would use a sliding scale
Contempt
Either a fine or incarceration can be a “criminal contempt” or a “civil contempt.”
A criminal contempt’s primary function is to punish for the past disobedience.
If there is a purge factor then it is not criminal.
A civil contempt compels obedience with the injunction in that a fine may increase or incarceration may continue until the defendant complies with the court’s order.
If has been in jail for more than 6months you can make the argument that it is now a criminal contempt and should have a jury trial.
6months and if the person holds the key
Collateral Bar Rule
Prevents a contemnor from challenging validity of the injunction that he has violated.
This rule is based on the notion that a party must challenge an injunction in court rather than by violating it.
Some jurisdictions like texas limit it when it concerns the first amendment
Sliding Scale anaylisis
7th Circuit (Judge Posner):
- Uses a balance-of-hardships approach: Likelihood of plaintiff’s success * harm to plaintiff > likelihood of defendant’s success * harm to defendant.
-Winter Decision: Alters this balancing approach by requiring irreparable harm.
10th Circuit:
- If plaintiff proves irreparable harm, favorable balance of harms, and no public harm, only needs to raise serious questions on the merits (not likely to prevail).
- Example: Citigroup Global Markets (10th Cir. 2010).
5th Circuit (Traditional Four-Factor Test):
- Requires plaintiff to satisfy all four factors, including showing likelihood of success on the merits.
all these are applicable to state courts not federal courts
Ex Parte TRO
Rule?
Fed Rule 65b1: A tro may be granted without written or oral notice if
- if it clearly shows from specific facts or by verified complaint that immediate and irreaparable
- the applicant attorney certifies to the court in writing the reasons his claim that notice should not be required
65(b)(2): The order expires at the time after entry—not to exceed 14 days—that the court sets, unless
before that time
the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or
the adverse party consents to a longer extension.
[NOTE: Although Rule 65(b) speaks only of an ex parte TRO, courts follow (b)(2) even when the TRO was issued with prior notice to the adverse party.]
Injunction Bonds
Which case gives us the bond rule on retroactvely increasing the Bond?
Federal Rule 65(c):
A preliminary injunction can only be issued if the movant provides security, as deemed proper by the court, to cover costs and damages for any party wrongfully enjoined or restrained..
*Sprint Case - *cannot retroactively increase bond after preliminary injucnction fails
Damages and Bond Limits 💸
- In federal court, recovery for a wrongfully issued preliminary injunction is limited to the bond amount.
- A separate action for malicious civil prosecution may be possible in some states (like Texas), but it’s complex and difficult.
- Increasing the bond amount during the proceedings is crucial to ensure sufficient recovery for incurred damages.
Appeals of Injunctions
Preliminary Injunctions??
Interlocutrary
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL), a court of appeals can hear appeals from interlocutory – that is, non-final – decisions of the district courts “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.”
- TRO: This statute speaks only of “injunctions” and does not allow appeal of a TRO because a TRO:
extends for only a short period of time;
may be issued without notice or a hearing; and
only briefly maintains the status quo with little chance of affecting the merits.
Courts **have allowed appeal of a TRO:
when it has extended beyond 28** days, without consent of the parties;
when, after sufficient preparation the parties had a full hearing, and the court entered findings of fact; and
when the TRO effectively decides the merits of the case.
INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
Apermanent injunctioncan be appealed as it is considered a final order. Apreliminary injunction, which is aninterlocutory order, can also be immediately appealed under both federal and Texas law.
There are two main ways to appeal an injunction:
-
Standard Appeal:
- File and docket your appeal.
- Follow the schedule, file briefs, and engage in oral arguments.
- Await the judges’ decision on the merits.
-
Motion for Stay:
- If the injunction is causing immediate and irreparable financial harm, you can file a motion to have a panel of the circuit listen to your claim for astay.
- Amotions panelcan be convened quickly, sometimes in a few days.
- The goal is to suspend the effect of the injunction, preventing its enforcement while the appeal is pending.> Astayessentially puts the injunction “on hold,” preventing it from being enforced while the court considers the appeal.
When Ex parte TROs are granted
Case Law
When Ex Parte TROs Are Granted ⚖️
Ex parte TROs are generally granted in situations where:
- Giving notice would harm the plaintiff’s case (e.g., evidence would disappear).
- There’s a risk of immediate harm to the plaintiff (e.g., violence).
- The plaintiff faces a significant commercial need (e.g., stopping the sale of counterfeit goods).
> This often occurs when the defendant would destroy evidence or otherwise act to harm the plaintiff’s case if they were given notice.
Epic Games: destruction of evidence – Louis Vuitton - Counter feit goods case - hide evidence
Prospective Fine Schedules for Violations of Injunctions
- Case Law
Bagwell Case
- 52 million in fines
-Criminal contempt: Punishes past violations; requires full constitutional protections.
Civil contempt: Aims to coerce future compliance; allows for purge (i.e., ability to avoid penalty by complying).
Why These Fines Were Criminal:
No realistic purge opportunity due to the complexity and scope of the injunction.
Fines were noncompensatory and punitive rather than remedial or coercive.
The injunction acted like a general criminal code, not specific directives.
The indirect contempt (outside court) required full procedures and fact-finding.
The judge’s label (civil) was not determinative—the nature of the sanction governs.
$52 million in fines were serious, triggering the right to a jury trial.
