Preliminary injunction

Last updated
Preliminary Injuction Requirements.png

A preliminary injunction, in equity, is an injunction entered by a court prior to a final determination of the merits of a legal case, in order to restrain a party from going ahead with a course of conduct or compelling a party to continue with a course of conduct until the case has been decided. If the case is decided against the party that has been enjoined, then the injunction will usually be made permanent. If the case is decided in favor of the party that has been enjoined, the injunction will usually be dissolved or dismissed.

Equity (law) Set of legal principles supplementing but distinct from the Common Law

In jurisdictions following the English common law system, equity is the body of law which was developed in the English Court of Chancery and which is now administered concurrently with the common law.

Injunction a legal order to stop doing something

An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction.

Court judicial institution with the authority to resolve legal disputes

A court is any person or institution with authority to judge or adjudicate, often as a government institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law. In both common law and civil law legal systems, courts are the central means for dispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all people have an ability to bring their claims before a court. Similarly, the rights of those accused of a crime include the right to present a defense before a court.

Processes in court

In most courts in the United States, the party seeking the preliminary injunction must demonstrate all six things together:[ citation needed ]

United States Federal republic in North America

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States or simply America, is a country comprising 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions. At 3.8 million square miles, the United States is the world's third or fourth largest country by total area and is slightly smaller than the entire continent of Europe. With a population of over 327 million people, the U.S. is the third most populous country. The capital is Washington, D.C., and the most populous city is New York City. Most of the country is located contiguously in North America between Canada and Mexico.

  1. That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case,
  2. That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted,
  3. The threat is immediate,
  4. That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction,
  5. There is no other available remedy,
  6. That the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest.

The "balance of harms" refers to the threatened injury to the party seeking the preliminary injunction as compared to the harm that the other party may suffer from the injunction.

The United States Supreme Court revisited the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction in Winter v. NRDC, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7 (2008). [1] The Court changed one requirement just slightly:

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.

"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest."

See also


Related Research Articles

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

  1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the "something to lose" doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
  2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.
  3. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney's fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.
National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a United States environmental law that promotes the enhancement of the environment and established the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The law was enacted on January 1, 1970. To date, more than 100 nations around the world have enacted national environmental policies modeled after NEPA.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on June 12, 1992, in which the court held that a group of American wildlife conservation and other environmental organizations lacked standing to challenge regulations jointly issued by the U.S. Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, regarding the geographic area to which a particular section of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 applied. The case arose over issues of US funding of development projects in Aswan, Egypt and Mahaweli, Sri Lanka that could harm endangered species in the affected areas. The government declared that the act did not apply to projects outside of the United States and Defenders of Wildlife sued.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Instead, a federal court must still weigh what the Court described as the four-factor test traditionally used to determine if an injunction should issue.

An interlocutory injunction is a court order to compel or prevent a party from doing certain acts pending the final determination of the case. It is an order made at an interim stage during the trial, and is usually issued to maintain the status quo until judgment can be made.

An irreparable injury is, in equity, "the type of harm which no monetary compensation can cure or put conditions back the way they were."

The term interim order refers to an order issued by a court during the pendency of the litigation. It is generally issued by the Court to ensure Status quo. The rationale for such orders to be issued by the Courts is best explained by the Latin legal maxim "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" which, translated to English, stands for "an act of the court shall prejudice no one". Therefore, to ensure that none of the interests of the parties to the litigation are harmed, the court may issue an interim order.

<i>EBay v. Bidders Edge</i>

eBay v. Bidder's Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058, was a leading case applying the trespass to chattels doctrine to online activities. In 2000, eBay, an online auction company, successfully used the 'trespass to chattels' theory to obtain a preliminary injunction preventing Bidder's Edge, an auction data aggregator, from using a 'crawler' to gather data from eBay's website. The opinion was a leading case applying 'trespass to chattels' to online activities, although its analysis has been criticized in more recent jurisprudence.

Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case decided 5–4 in which several environmental organizations brought suit against the United States Forest Service (USFS) to enjoin that federal agency from implementing rules that would allow the salvage sale of timber from 238 acres of fire-damaged federally owned land without conducting the notice, comment, and appeal process of the Forest Service Decision-making and Appeals Reform Act.

Peliculu in mora, Latin for "danger in delay", is one of two conditions which must be asserted in actions aimed at obtaining a protective order or injunction, to be granted the relief sought. The second condition is the c.d. Prima facie case. The burden of proof of danger in delay falls to the person who requests the injunction or order, demonstrating the existence of both requirements, periculum notice, and the risk of suffering serious and irreparable damage. The term 'serious harm' refers to the magnitude of the damages, calculated in relation to the value of the property in dispute: an injury will not be so serious in itself, but only when compared to the object of contention. Irreparable damage is in the possibility of a remedy in the future against which the party seeking the injunction believes they will suffer. Only asset orientation is currently supported, in that the prevailing possibility of obtaining compensation for damages is, in itself, sufficient to prevent the founding of irreparable harm.

Periculum in mora, Latin for "danger in delay", is one of two conditions which must be asserted in actions aimed at obtaining a protective order or injunction to be granted and relief sought. The second condition is the c.d. Prima facie case. The burden of proof of danger in delay falls to the person who requests the injunction or order, demonstrating the existence of both requirements, pericolum notice, and the risk of suffering serious and irreparable damage.

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.

<i>Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.</i>

Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc. was a copyright case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving a DMCA takedown notice dispute between companies that produce virtual animals on Second Life. Ozimals filed a DMCA takedown notice, claiming that Amaretto's horse infringed on their bunnies. Consequently, Amaretto filed for a temporary restraining order against Linden Research, the makers of Second Life. This was granted and held in effect as the case proceeded.

Warner Bros. Entertainment v. WTV Systems is a 2011 copyright infringement case decided in United States District Court, C.D. California.

ACLU v. Zell Miller was a court case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in 1997 between the ACLU, along with other parties, and then Georgia governor, Zell Miller.

<i>Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.</i>

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 724, was a United States district court case in which the visual artist Sheila Wolk brought suit against Kodak Imaging Network, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Photobucket.com, Inc. for copyright infringement. Users uploaded Wolk's work to Photobucket, a user-generated content provider, which had a revenue sharing agreement with Kodak that permitted users to use Kodak Gallery to commercially print (photofinish) images from Photobucket's site—including unauthorized copies of Wolk's artwork.

<i>Garcia v. Google, Inc.</i>

Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, is an ongoing dispute that arose when Cindy Lee Garcia sued Google and its video-sharing website, YouTube, to have the controversial film, Innocence of Muslims, taken down from the site. A California district court denied Garcia's motion for preliminary injunction, but, on appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision, ordered YouTube to take down all copies of Innocence of Muslims, and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration. In May 2015, in an en banc opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the panel's decision, vacating the order for the preliminary injunction.

<i>Federal Trade Commission v. Vemma Nutrition Company</i>

Federal Trade Commission v. Vemma Nutrition Company, No. 2:15-cv-01578, was a case heard in United States District Court for the District of Arizona. On August 17, 2015 the Federal Trade Commission for the United States filed a complaint for the preliminary injunction and for other equitable relief of Vemma Nutrition Company.. The FTC, under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act filed for the permanent injunction of Vemma and alleged Vemma in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C § 45 (a) in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion, and sale of opportunities to sell health and wellness drinks. The FTC alleged Vemma Nutrition Company of running an illegal pyramid scheme dependent on targeting young adults and recruitment tactics that emphasize the importance of becoming an "affiliate" and purchasing "affiliate packs" and monthly auto-delivery supply packs. Vemma further emphasizes the importance of affiliates to recruit others and "teach them to duplicate this process," offering "bonuses" as incentive for doing so. Vemma CEO Benson K. Boreyko claimed in his recruitment presentations that there is a potential for affiliates to "earn up to $50,000 a month working part time." The FTC found that affiliates are unlikely to earn substantial income and suffer, therefore being misled to participate in a deceptive act in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C § 45 (a).