Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that should only be granted when justice requires, when no adequate legal remedy exists, and when there is a real and imminent danger of irreparable injury. Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v Pontiac, 482 Mich 1, 8 (2008).
A.Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
A TRO may be granted without notice to the adverse party if the following conditions are satisfied:
“(a) it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by a verified complaint that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant from the delay required to effect notice or from the risk that notice will itself precipitate adverse action before an order can be issued;
(b) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, that have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required; and
(c) a permanent record or memorandum is made of any nonwritten evidence, argument, or other representations made in support of the application.” MCR 3.310(B)(1)(a)-(c).
A TRO granted without notice must:
“(a) be endorsed with the date and time of issuance;
(b) describe the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice;
(c) except in domestic relations actions, set a date for hearing at the earliest possible time on the motion for a preliminary injunction or order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued.” MCR 3.310(B)(2)(a)-(c).
“In order to establish irreparable injury, the moving party must demonstrate a noncompensable injury for which there is no legal measurement of damages or for which damages cannot be determined with a sufficient degree of certainty. The injury must be both certain and great, and it must be actual rather than theoretical. Economic injuries are not irreparable because they can be remedied by damages at law.” Thermatool Corp v Borzym, 227 Mich App 366, 377 (1998) (internal citations omitted).
“Before granting a . . . temporary restraining order, the court may require the applicant to give security, in the amount the court deems proper, for the payment of costs and damages that may be incurred or suffered by a party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” MCR 3.310(D)(1).
The moving party has the burden of establishing that a preliminary injunction should issue. MCR 3.310(A)(4).
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the parties’ status quo. Bratton v DAIIE, 120 Mich App 73, 79 (1982). The Court of Appeals summarized the reason behind the purpose and how it should apply to parties seeking a preliminary injunction:
“The object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo, so that upon the final hearing the rights of the parties may be determined without injury to either. The status quo which will be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy. The injunction should not be issued if the party seeking it fails to show that it will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued. Furthermore, a preliminary injunction will not be issued if it will grant one of the parties all the relief requested prior to a hearing on the merits. Finally, a preliminary injunction should not be issued where the party seeking it has an adequate remedy at law.” Bratton, 120 Mich App at 79 (internal citations omitted).
The court should consider four factors in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction:
(1) whether the injunction would harm the public interest;
(2) whether the harm to the plaintiff in the absence of a stay would outweigh the harm to the defendant if the stay is granted;
(3) whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; and
(4) whether the plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if a preliminary injunction is denied. Michigan State Emp Ass’n v Dep’t of Mental Health, 421 Mich 152, 157-158 (1984).
A party seeking a preliminary injunction “bears the burden of proving that the traditional four elements favor the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” Detroit Fire Fighters Ass’n, IAFF Local 344 v Detroit, 482 Mich 18, 34 (2008).
“In order to establish irreparable injury, the moving party must demonstrate a noncompensable injury for which there is no legal measurement of damages or for which damages cannot be determined with a sufficient degree of certainty. The injury must be both certain and great, and it must be actual rather than theoretical. Economic injuries are not irreparable because they can be remedied by damages at law.” Thermatool Corp v Borzym, 227 Mich App 366, 377 (1998) (internal citations omitted).
“Before granting a preliminary injunction . . . the court may require the applicant to give security, in the amount the court deems proper, for the payment of costs and damages that may be incurred or suffered by a party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” MCR 3.310(D)(1).
If a preliminary injunction is granted, “[t]he trial of the action on the merits must be held within 6 months after the injunction is granted, unless good cause is shown or the parties stipulate to a longer period.” MCR 3.310(A)(5). The court must issue a decision on the merits within 56 days after completion of the trial. Id.
A party requesting a permanent injunction has a heavier burden of proof than a party requesting a preliminary injunction. Barkau v Ruggirello, 100 Mich App 617, 623 (1980). The plaintiff “‘must prove by a preponderance of the evidence actual or threatened invasion of his rights as alleged. Proof of mere apprehension of injury is insufficient to justify granting injunctive relief.’” Id., quoting Dutch Cookie Machine Co v Vande Vrede, 289 Mich 272, 280 (1939).
Every injunction and restraining order must state why it was issued, be specific as to its terms, and describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained. MCR 3.310(C)(1)-(3). Reference cannot be made to any other document to describe the acts restrained. MCR 3.310(C). Injunctions and restraining orders are “binding only on the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and on those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.” MCR 3.310(C)(4).
The grant or denial of injunctive relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v Pontiac, 482 Mich 1, 8 (2008).