In the world of law, there are times when simply awarding money will not resolve a dispute. Sometimes, you need the court to step in and say, “Stop that!” or, less commonly, “Make it happen!” That’s where injunctions come in. An injunction is an order issued by a judge that forces a person or entity to perform an action or stop taking certain action.
An injunction is a court order that compels a person to either do or refrain from doing specific acts. There are two main types:
- Prohibitory injunctions: These are the most common type. They tell someone to stop doing something, like harassing a neighbor or using a stolen trade secret.
- Mandatory injunctions: Less frequent, these require someone to take action, such as cleaning up environmental damage or removing a building that violates zoning laws.
Injunctions are issued to prevent what’s called irreparable harm. This means the harm that would occur if the action is not stopped (or started) can’t be adequately compensated with money. Imagine a unique piece of art being destroyed – you can’t just replace it with cash!
There are also two main timelines for injunctions:
- Preliminary injunctions: These are temporary orders issued before a trial to preserve the situation. Think of them as a “hold on” button while the judge considers the case.
- Permanent injunctions: These are issued as part of the final judgment in a lawsuit and stay in effect indefinitely, or until certain conditions are met.
It’s important to note that violating an injunction is serious business. It can lead to fines, imprisonment, or even being held in contempt of court.
Here are some real-life examples of injunctions:
- A competitor is selling a product that infringes on your copyright. You can seek an injunction to stop them from selling it.
- A construction project is causing damage to your property. You can seek an injunction to halt construction until the issue is resolved.
- A former employee is violating a non-compete agreement. You can seek an injunction to prevent them from working for a competitor.
Arizona Law on Injunctions. Generally, Arizona law requires the moving party to prove several elements before granting an injunction. Specifically, the moving party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: a reasonable likelihood of success at trial; the remedies at law are inadequate; the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the potential harm to the nonmoving party; and the public interest would not be disserved by granting the requested injunction.
Hearing on the Injunction. Rule 65(a) requires a hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction for the purpose of providing the party opposing the preliminary injunction to have an opportunity to be heard and present testimony when there are disputed issues of fact. McCarthy Western Constructors, Inc. v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 169 Ariz. 520, 821 P.2d 181 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1991), redesignated as opinion and publication ordered, (Apr. 2, 1991)
Injunction Bond. Under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(c)(1), a condition for securing any restraining order or preliminary injunction is the posting by the applicant of security, usually an injunction bond, in an amount fixed by the Court “for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”
The amount of the bond fixed by the Court limits the surety’s liability, but not the amount of wrongful injunction damages that may be recovered from the party obtaining the injunction. Smith v. Coronado Foothills Estates Homeowners Ass’n Inc., 117 Ariz. 171, 571 P.2d 668 (1977).
The surety’s liability on the bond may be enforced by motion in the same action in which the injunction was secured, by proceeding under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65.1.
The recovery may include the attorney’s fees incurred in securing dissolution of the injunction. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Frohmiller, 71 Ariz. 377, 227 P.2d 1007 (1951); Mason Dry Goods Co. v. Ackel, 30 Ariz. 7, 243 P. 606 (1926).
The fees recoverable are only those incurred in procuring the dissolution of the injunction, however, and not the fees incurred in the general defense of the case, which must be segregated. Hammond v. A.J. Bayless Markets, 58 Ariz. 58, 117 P.2d 490 (1941); Jacobson v. Laurel Canyon Mining Co., 27 Ariz. 546, 234 P. 823 (1925); State v. Williams, 12 Ariz. App. 498, 472 P.2d 109 (Div. 1 1970).
Modification or Dissolution of Preliminary Injunction. Between the date of its issuance and the trial on the merits, a preliminary injunction may be dissolved or modified upon application of the enjoined party, after an answer is filed. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(3).
If the basis for securing a modification or dissolution is the fact that the material allegations of the complaint have been denied, the answer should be verified. Unless such a motion is unopposed, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(3).
A trial court’s order dissolving a preliminary injunction is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, except that issues of law involved in that determination will be reviewed de novo. Griffis v. Pinal County, 213 Ariz. 300, 141 P.3d 780 (Ct. App. Div. 2 2006), opinion vacated on other grounds, 215 Ariz. 1, 156 P.3d 418, 35 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1726 (2007).
Rule 65(a)(2)(C), which authorizes an application to dissolve or modify preliminary injunctions, does not provide a vehicle for attacking the original basis for the injunction on grounds that were available when the request for injunctive relief was first heard. Town of Tortolita v. Napolitano, 199 Ariz. 556, 20 P.3d 599 (Ct. App. Div. 1 2001).
Rather, the rule serves the much more limited purpose of providing a means to show that changed circumstances, including matters which could not reasonably have been raised at the preliminary injunction hearing, or changes in the law, require that the injunction be modified or dissolved. TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms, 232 Ariz. 489, 307 P.3d 56 (Ct. App. Div. 1 2013); Town of Tortolita v. Napolitano, 199 Ariz. 556, 20 P.3d 599 (Ct. App. Div. 1 2001)
Consolidation of Preliminary Injunction Hearing with Trial on the Merits. In the interests of expediting the final resolution of the dispute, and particularly in instances where most of the evidence that bears upon the controversy will be presented at the preliminary injunction hearing, the court may order that the hearing be consolidated with the full trial on the merits. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). Riess v. City of Tucson, 19 Ariz. App. 579, 509 P.2d 651 (Div. 2 1973).
Even where such a consolidation is not ordered, evidence received during the preliminary injunction hearing which would be admissible at the trial on the merits becomes part of the record and need not be offered and received again at trial. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2)(C).
Violation of Injunction. Disobedience of an injunction may be punished as a contempt of court. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(f)(1). See also Green v. Lisa Frank, Inc., 221 Ariz. 138, 211 P.3d 16 (Ct. App. Div. 2 2009) (acknowledging limitations prescribed by language of [former] Rule 65(j) [currently, Rule 65(f)] and discussing inherent authority of the court to dismiss an action for failure to comply with injunctive orders).
The party in whose favor the injunction was issued and who believes the injunction has been violated, must file an affidavit stating that the party against whom the injunction was issued is guilty of disobeying it, and describing the acts claimed to constitute disobedience of the injunction. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(f)(2).
Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(f)(3) contains detailed order to show cause procedures that must be followed on receipt of the affidavit. Those procedures include setting a date for any written response, and requiring the person allegedly violating the injunction to appear and respond. The order to show cause, and the supporting affidavit, must be served on the person to be charged with contempt at least 10 days before any hearing. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(f)(3) and (4).
If the person against whom the injunction was issued fails to appear or make return on the order to show cause, the court may direct that person’s arrest. If the claimed contemnor is a corporation and fails to appear, an attachment for sequestration of the corporation’s property may issue. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(f)(7).
If, upon appearance, the person against whom the injunction was issued is found to have disobeyed it, the court may commit that person to jail until the contempt is purged in a fashion the court directs, or until that person is discharged by law. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(f)(6).
Injunctions are a powerful tool for protecting your rights and preventing harm. If you think you might need an injunction, consult an experienced attorney then contact the Dunaway Law Group at 480-702-1608 or message us HERE. *This information is provided as informational only, does not constitute legal advice, and will not create an attorney-client or attorney-prospective client relationship. Additionally, the Dunaway Law Group, PLC limits its practice to the states of Arizona and New York