Injunctions Flashcards
Overview
Nature of Injunction
■ Equitable Relief
■ Protects the P’s Rightful Position
■ 4 types of Injunctions
- Preventative
- Reparative
- Prophylactic
- Structural
Qualifying for Injunctions
■ Threat harm
■ Irreparable injury
■ Balancing the Equities
■ Public interest
Scope
■ Scope of Inj = Scope of Harm [shouldn’t be overbroad, or not enough]
Enforcement: Modification; Contempt
Qualifying for an Injunction
- IMMINENT THREAT OF HARM
- IRREPARABLE INJURY
○ Legal remedy ($) inadequate - BALANCE OF THE HARDSHIPS:
○ Defendant’s Undue Burden must not weigh more - PUBLIC INTEREST
○ Do we want to have this type of an injunction? 3rd parties? Public policy?
● Also consider → Practicality? Feasibility?
○ Will this require a lot of oversight? Are we experts in this area?
Temporary Restraining Orders
Emergency order granted only if immediate & irreparable harm before hearing can be held
Freezing the status quo, keep things how they are, so P does not suffer further harm
An extraordinary remedy, not done lightly - so limited in scope and duration
● Operates short time (7-14 days)
● Goal: to prevent immediate harm
Procedures FRCP 65(b)
- “Without notice”– EX PARTE
■ IF efforts made to give notice & reasons given
● Must provide rationale for not notifying, or not able to notify
■ Motion to dissolve - adverse party may provide 2 days notice to modify/dissolve
- Expiration – up to 14 days unless extended
- Security – movant pays $ for possible harm [discretionary]
- 1st amend limits → not granted without notice!
■ There can be limits on a party’s ability to get a TRO in this realm
Special Notes on TROs
● Appealability: No appeal usually 28 USC 1291
○ Don’t need to appeal. Expire + PI hearing
○ Only if TRO becomes “effectively injunction” → can appeal
● Domestic Violence Exception
○ DV statutes create exception – NO notice required [But required for follow-up PI hearing]
Modification and Termination of Injunctions
Q1: WHAT DOES D WANT
MODIFICATION (Rufo):
Changed circumstances law or fact
Tailored to change
TERMINATION (Dowell or Horne)
Q2: WHY?
Substantial Compliance (Dowell)
◼ Def complied in good faith and
◼ Eliminated original harm to extent practicable
◼ Won’t do again.
Changed Circumstances (Horne)
◼ No longer equitable prospectively due to Changed
circumstances
◼ Purpose of Decree Achieved (comply with LAW)
Complied FRCP 60(5)
Grounds for Relief:
◼ Judgment satisfied, released, or discharged
◼ Judgement/order based on an earlier judgment which has been reversed or vacated
◼ Applying Judgement/Order prospectively is no
longer equitable
Contempt
Violation of injunction = Additional remedy of CONTEMPT
○ In Personam (D faces fines or jail; may lose “liberty”)
A WRONG: Violation of court order.
Prima facia case: [shown by clear and convincing ev]
○ 1. Clear, specific Court order
○ 2. Def’s Knowledge/Notice
○ 3. Violation – noncompliance
○ 4. Intent – willfulness if criminal
A REMEDY: Court’s reaction based on wrong – jail or fines for disobedience
Qualifying for an Injunction Step 1: Threat of Harm
Plaintiff faces threat of real imminent harm
Real = facts, not subjective personal fear, not hypothetical
Imminent = future, immediate (not too early or too late)
Harm = violation of parameters of law [legal harm based on a legal right]
LOOK AT: past violations, continuing violations or explicit threat before a court can issue injunction
Lyons - officers applied chokehold even tho P not resisting, caused damage to his larynx.
Court said no “immediate” threat of harm – no Jdx!
Key: good ex of how court used standing to argue lack of threat of harm to deny an injunction
Qualifying for an Injunction Step 2: Irreparable Injury
“Irreparable” = no adequate legal remedy [$ damages would not be adequate]
When Damages are “Inadequate”
- D can’t pay: judgment proof or immune
- Damages difficult to measure
- Unique property (Land, Specific Performance, UCC)
- Intangible Rights (civil rights, environment)
- Multiplicity of ongoing future suits
- Personal injuries (torts) (money can’t always make you whole)
■ Trespass/nuisance
Qualifying for an Injunction Step 3: Balance of Equities
Harm to Def from the Injunction itself vs. if the public interest would be harmed.
Smith v. Staso Milling Co: P sought inj to stop the mill from creating dust which was polluting a stream and the air. Mill employed over 100 ppl, they spent a lot of $ to create this biz
- Stream inj ok, but air pollution inj not bc of burden to public (to employees, to economy, etc.) and the harm is less oppressive/ can be repaired with $ [a less restrictive way to repair harm]
Key: Even though there’s an injury, and $ damages won’t make P completely whole, the court looked at the burden on D by issuing the inj, and if too great, provided just $ damages.
Qualifying for an Injunction Step 4: Public Interest
“Public”
- Policy issues
- Public health/safety
- Public Economic issues
Third parties (employees working for the company injunction would be enforced against)
Scope of Injunction
Rule: SCOPE of Injunction = SCOPE of harm
OVERBROAD if
○ Invade D’s constitutional interests
○ Beyond Scope of Harm
○ Beyond Rightful Position
NOT OVERBROAD if preventative
○ May reach facilitators of harm
○ May order precautions
Specific Performance Analysis
Specific Performance = order to D to perform as specifically promised under the contract
○ 1. Threat of harm from breach of contract
■ Terms of contract must be certain
○ 2. Irreparable injury ($ inadequate)
■ Unique goods (difficult to obtain?)
■ Real property? Walgreens: One big store in a mall creates lots of foot traffic for other business (anchor tenant). If that store goes down, everyone is hurt
■ Damages inadequate, difficult to measure? - Walgreens
○ 3. Balance of Hardships
■ Hardship to defendant
■ Difficult of supervision of contract
● No personal service contracts forcing employment – negative?
■ Costs of inefficiency, costs to buy out
● Can also consider third parties, like other pharmacy in Walgreens case
Specific Performance UCC
Tangible Property= UCC
Everything else= Common law
(1) Specific performance may be decreed where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances.
(2) Courts can order specific performance for payment of the price, damages, or other relief as the court may deem just.
(3) The buyer has a right of replevin for goods identified to the contract IF they have used reasonable effort to recover them
UCC only explicitly provides for BUYER’s SP, bc usually SELLER satisfied with recovery of price ($)
But does not foreclose SELLER from seeking SP.
4 Types of Injunctions
PREVENTIVE – stops ongoing harm
● E.g. Company must stop discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (but P does not necessarily get a reparation)
REPARATIVE – undoes the ongoing consequences of harm
● E.g. Company that discriminated in promotion decision must promote EE to position of sales manager.
PROPHYLACTIC – imposes additional measures to address facilitators of continuing harm so it doesn’t happen again
● Safeguard P’s rights by ordering behavior that is not otherwise required by law
● E.g. Company must adopt non-discrimination policy/train employees on sexual orientation discrimination
○ Rizzo v. Goode - Issue: Did the district court exceed its authority when it required Ds to submit a program for improving the handling of citizen complaints alleging police misconduct?
■ → YES. Not fair to ask the city to fix the problem, when the specific officers were the problem. [Also federalism concerns]
STRUCTURAL – Changes the structure of a large public or private institution (prisons/hospitals/schools)
● Brown v. Plata - Severe overcrowding of CAs prisons, lack of resources.
● Court found CA “prison medical care system broken beyond repair, unconscionable degree of suffering+death.”
○ May court impose limits on overcrowding of prisons to remedy a violation of prisoners’ 8A rts?
○ Hold: Yes. Jails were running at 200%, court issued an injunction to go down to 135%.
Specific Performance of Contracts for Real Property
Land considered “unique,” therefore SP/INJ always an issue
Reasoning
■ Calculation of damages difficult
● No fully liquid market for real property)
● Subjective values skew (homeowner, personal value)
■ Costs supervision low bc no ongoing relations to supervise
What about contracts related to real estate? E.g. contract to clear ice and snow
● Not automatic; regular balancing rules
● Ice cleaning contract requires continuing supervision, $ easy for replacement
○ Exclusivity clause more like presumptive SP (Walgreens)
Qualifying for Contempt
- DISOBEDIENCE with Injunction
○ Clear, specific order + Def’s knowledge/notice of order
○ Violation = failure to comply [Defenses: Inability to comply; collateral bar] - REMEDY
○ A. Character
■ Criminal: fixed, determinate, punish for forbidden act
■ Coercive: conditional, purgeable, coerce refusal to act
■ Compensatory: remedial, compensate for loss
○ B. Fines or Jail - PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
