Remedies Flashcards
What is an Injunction?
Purpose of Injunctive Relief: the injunctive remedy is used to order defendants to engage in, or to refrain from engaging in a specified act or acts.
Mandatory vs Prohibitory Injunctions
an injunction that compels an act is referred to as mandatory, while one that forbids an act is referred to as a prohibitory injunction. Courts are generally more willing to grant prohibitory rather than mandatory injunctions.
Preventative vs Reparative Injunctions
A preventative injunction requires a defendant to do or not do an act as a means of preventing harm while a reparative injunction requires a defendant to perform an act to repair harm already done. The two types are not mutually exclusive and can both be ordered in a single case.
What are the Primary Factors for Granting an Injunction?
The Primary Factors for Granting an Injunction:
(1)Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction;
(2)Whether an injunction is required because the plaintiff has inadequate remedy of law;
(3)Whether, in balancing the parties’ respective hardships, an injunction favors the plaintiff;
(4)Whether an injunction would be against the larger public interest
Interlocutory Injunctions
Interlocutory Injunctions are issued by a court before a final judgment is entered. The primary purpose is to prevent imminent irreparable harm to the plaintiff or to maintain the status quo until a court can decide the merits of the case and enter a final judgment. There are two main types: temporary restraining orders (TRO) and preliminary injunctions.
Temporary Restraining Order
TROs are issued at the very outset of litigation when a court believes that such an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury or to maintain the status quo. They can be issued in an ex parte manner, without notice to opposing parties, if required by exigent circumstances (usually only good for 14 days or until full and noticed hearing). TROs are usually for only a very limited duration (fed: 14 days, CA: 21-25 days). Not subject to appeals due to temporary nature.
Preliminary Injunctions
Preliminary injunctions differ from TROs in two ways.
First, preliminary injunctions may only be issued after a court hearing at which the party subject to the potential injunction is given notice and the opportunity to respond to the other party’s request for the injunction.
Second, preliminary injunctions typically remain in effect for an extended period of time during the pendency of the lawsuit.
In deciding whether to grant a motion for a preliminary injunction, a court considers not only the four traditional factors in deciding whether to grant an injunction (irreparable harm, inadequate remedy at law, balancing the parties’ respective hardships, and the public interest) but also the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits. The greater the likelihood of success, the less the movant needs to show concerning the four traditional factors. Subject to appeals.
Permanent Injunctions
Permanent injunctions are final judgments that occur after the court has conducted a full adversarial process. Courts permanently enjoin a wide variety of torts or conduct that violates constitutional or statutory provisions. No showing of likelihood of success on the merits is necessitated as the plaintiff will have succeeded on the merits by this point. These are appealable as any final judgment would be.
Bond Requirements for Injunctions
California does not require a bond for a TRO but does require for a permanent injunction. Federal law requires bond for both TRO and PI. Bond is amount to protect Defendant, if it is later determined that D was wrongfully enjoined.
Exceptions: Court has discretion to either say that no bond is required or only require a nominal amount, especially if P lacks funds or is a Public Interest Group. Up to Defendant’s counsel to ensure bond amount is sufficient to protect the Defendant.
Inadequacy of Legal Remedy
Plaintiffs must convince the court that a normal legal remedy is inadequate. The burden is on the Plaintiff to show that money is not enough or the harm is too speculative to be quantified.
Irreparable Harm
Can be shown through a demonstration that money won’t fix the problem or an emergency involving health or safety.
Enforceability/Feasibility of an Injunction
A request for an injunction may be denied if it is not feasible for the court to enforce the injunction. In particular, courts have traditionally been reluctant to issue injunctions that require extensive involvement and continued supervision by the court. Such injunctions may still be issued if the underlying right is sufficiently important (ie Constitutional Rights).
Injunction against future acts
To issue an injunction that prohibits future acts, the plaintiff must show a real and immediate threat that such acts will occur. It is not sufficient to merely show that events have happened in the past.
What are common Equitable defenses to an Injunction?
Laches
The doctrine of laches is a failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner resulting in a claim being barred. The reasoning behind this doctrine is that the delay in asserting the claim may have caused a great increase in the potential damages to be awarded, or assets that could earlier have been used to satisfy the claim may have been distributed in the meantime. In other words, the defendant suffers greater harm than if the claim had been asserted on time.
Unclean Hands
Under the unclean hands doctrine, the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because he is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint.
Requirements for Nuisance/Trespass Injunction
To determine whether an injunction is appropriate for nuisance it must first be established that a nuisance exists by showing that interference by Defendant:
1. Is Substantial
2. Is Unreasonable
Contempt
Court has in personam jurisdiction over a Defendant over a Defendant when the court exercises its equitable powers. Allows courts to punish or coerce Defendants for violations.
Civil: Civil contempt is intended to coerce compliance with court rules or orders. Despite this civil contempt can include jail time, fines, and compensation to Plaintiff. Not considered a punishment.
Criminal: Criminal contempt is intended to punish a Defendant for violations. Unless an incident occurs immediately within the sight or hearing of the judge matters are referred to prosecutors for criminal contempt. Punishment can be money or jail time. Money is paid to the court.
Who May be bound by an Injunction?
With rare exceptions, injunctions only apply to parties to the litigation, a party’s agent, and any other person who is in active concert or participation with a party or party’s agent. The exception is when a nonparty who has no relationship with a party or party’s agent and who is not acting in collusion with the party or party’s agent engages in conduct that frustrates both the rights of the plaintiff and the duties of the defendant under the court’s injunction. In such a case, the court’s equity power extends to the nonparty in order to preserve the court’s ability to render a binding adjudication between the parties. A nonparty to whom an injunction applies need not be explicitly named in the court’s order. So long as the nonparty receives sufficient notice of the injunction, the nonparty is bound by the injunction.
What is Specific Performance as a Remedy?
Specific performance of a contract is an equitable remedy that resembles an injunction but occurs in the context of a contractual relationship rather than as a result of defendant’s tort or other violation of law. Like an injunction, it is subject to the traditional four equitable factors, although usually the question of whether money damages are an adequate remedy at law is the disputed issue.
Requirements to Order Specific Performance
Requirements for Specific Performance
For a court to grant a plaintiff’s request for specific performance, the following requirements must be met:
-There must be a contract
-The contract terms must be sufficiently certain to provide basis for court order
-The conditions required for Defendant’s performance must be satisfied
-Damages must be inadequate to protect plaintiff’s expectation interest
-Relief must be equitable
-Enforcement must be feasible
Adequacy of Legal Remedy: Specific Performance
Damages are inadequate if the property to be transferred is unique, such as land, a work of art, or a rare manuscript. In addition, in the case of the buyer of the goods, the inability of the buyer to cover (purchase substitute goods from another seller) gives rise to a right of specific performance, even if such goods are not unique.
Partial Inadequacy and Specific Performance
The adequacy of damages with respect to part of the contract does not prevent specific performance from being a remedy for the contract as a whole.
Specific Performance: Availability of Other Remedies
The availability of other remedies, not including damages, such as restitution or replevin does not prevent the award of specific performance.
Effect of Liquidated Damages provision on Specific Performance
A contract provision for liquidated damages does not preclude specific performance as a remedy. However, if the contract specifically provides for payment as an alternative to performance, then specific performance can only be granted on the condition that such payment is not made.
What is Rescission?
When a court awards rescission as a remedy, the court cancels the contract between the parties based on a mistake; fraud, misrepresentation, or some other inequitable conduct by one of the parties; or lack of capacity or authority by one of the parties. Rescission will return the parties to the same positions that they were in before entering into the contract. Rescission will not be granted merely because a contract becomes very disadvantageous to one of the parties, without one of those grounds for rescission.
When will a court grant rescission based on mistake?
A court can rescind a contract if one or both parties were mistaken, or if they possessed different understandings, about a material aspect of the contract, depending on the circumstances. As a general rule, rescission is more likely to occur when the mistake or misunderstanding was mutual (i.e., both parties were mistaken or misunderstood) rather than unilateral (i.e., only one party was mistaken or misunderstood).
A court will grant rescission in a case of mutual mistake when:
(1) the parties were each mistaken or possessed different understandings about a material aspect of the contract or were mutually mistaken about the material facts or circumstances underlying the contract that pertained to a basic assumption about the contract, and
(2) the party seeking rescission was not negligent in his or her failure to discover the mistake before entering the contract and the contract did not assign the risk of a mistake to the party seeking rescission.
When will a court grant rescission based fraud related reasons?
In the absence of a mistake by both parties, a court may rescind a contract based on fraud, duress or undue influence, or a party’s lack of capacity or authority.
