Preliminary Injunctions and TRO

Question 1

Winter v. NRDC
Preliminary Injunctions (federal common law)

Answer 1

• A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish
  1. They are likely to succeed on the merits
  2. They are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief
  3. The balance of equities tips in their favor and
  4. An injunction is in the public interest
  i. Winter v NRDC

Question 2

• Scope

Answer 2

○ Injunctive relief must be tailored to remedy the specific harm alleged and an overbroad preliminary injunction is an abuse of discretion (NRDC v. Winter)

Question 2

28 USC 1292 Interlocutory Decisions

Answer 2

A. The crts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of app from
1. Interlocutory orders of the district crts of the US ….or of judges thereof granting continuing modifying refusing or dissolving injunction or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions

Question 3

FRCP 65 Injunctions and Restraining Orders

Answer 3

A. Preliminary Injunction
1. Notice - the crt may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party
2. Consolidating the hearing with the trial on the merits

Question 4

Claim Preclusion

Answer 4

• A final judgment on the merits (one that actually passes directly on the substance of a particular claim before the crt) of an action precludes the same parties or those they are in privity with (agreement to be bound, substantive legal relationship (successors in interest, assignee), a party in the first suit had the same interests and provided adequate representation, nonparty is a proxy (agent) of a party to the first lawsuit, special statutory scheme that forecloses successive litigation (like bankruptcy or probate)) from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised (same transactions: common nucleus of operative facts) in the previous action.

Question 5

Issue Preclusion

Answer 5

• A party may be precluded from relitigating an issue that is identical to one raised in a prior action (issue not claim) if the prior action resulted in a final judgment the issue was actually litigated and determined (consider the parties filings and arguments and the courts findings and decisions), the issue was necessary to the judgment (consider: if the issue had come out the other way, would the judgment be the same?), and the party against whom the doctrine is invoked was a party (or in privity with a party) to the prior action
  ○ (non mutual (offensive) issue preclusion should not apply if the application is unfair. It may be unfair if the party seeking preclusion could have easily joined the earlier action if the party to the prior action did not have an incentive to litigate vigorously in that action if the judgment is inconsistent with others if the second action affords the precluded party procedural opportunities that were unavailable in the first).
  Parklane Hoisery v. Shore
  Monahan