BEYOND IRREPARABLE INJURY - Balancing the BEYOND IRREPARABLE INJURY - Balancing the Equities (aka Undue Hardship to the Defendant)Equities (aka Undue Hardship to the Defendant)

Even if P can show irreparable injury a court may still deny an injunction if hardship to D is too significant

Court asks whether:

The hardship on D of granting the injunction

disproportionately outweighs

hardship on P of not granting the injunction (akabenefit to plaintiff of granting the injunction)

Balancing of Equities/Undue Hardship, cont’dBalancing of Equities/Undue Hardship, cont’d

• This is a defense = must be raised by D or it’s waived.

• How do we give content to this test?

• What kinds of harm to P if injunction is not granted (or what benefit to P if it is granted) does court weigh in the balance?

• What kinds of harm to D if injunction granted does court typically weigh in the balance?

Balancing the Equities in Balancing the Equities in WhitlockWhitlock

• Does the burden on D (Hilander) if the injunction is granted disproportionately outweigh burden on P (Whitlock) if injunction is not granted (or benefit if granted)?

• What is harm to D if granted?• What is harm to P if not granted?

• Why doesn’t appellate court uphold lower court’s REFUSAL to grant injunction?

To what extent should D’s culpability factor into the To what extent should D’s culpability factor into the court’s balancing of equities?court’s balancing of equities?

• How should courts deal with D’s culpability during the balancing?

• Should it matter that D acted intentionally if D’s harm from granting the injunction is disproportionate to P’s harm?

• What outcome in Whitlock if D didn’t know the addition was over the property boundary but also didn’t bother to check?

To what extent does P’s culpability weigh in the To what extent does P’s culpability weigh in the balancing?balancing?

• If P does something to aggravate the situation, courts can weigh P’s actions in the balance as well.

• Example – if P refused to allow surveyors on land to find out where lot lines between P & D’s land were

• To what extent is D arguing P (Whitlock) has acted in a manner so as to be undeserving of relief?

• P’s claim is barred by laches• The Doctrine of Laches: Equity aids the vigilant, not those who

sleep on their rights.• Courts deny relief if

• P’s neglect to assert a right or claim• Together with the passage of time or other circumstances• Substantially prejudices D

• Do P’s actions fit this definition?

Cooperative InsuranceCooperative Insurance – Still More Reasons to Deny – Still More Reasons to Deny InjunctionsInjunctions

Once P has established irreparable injury as a result of D’s actions, a court may still deny P’s request for an injunction for many reasons OTHER than balancing of the equities (these are often described simply as part of a court’s “equitable discretion”).

What remedy does Co-op Ins. P seek?

Why does the trial court refuse to grant P’s requested remedy?

Cooperative Insurance Cooperative Insurance – Balancing the Equities (a – Balancing the Equities (a review)review)

In whose favor do the equities balance? Who has the greater burden if the injunction is or is not granted?

◦ P’s burden if not granted?◦ D’s burden if granted? Disproportionate to P’s?◦ Wasn’t D an intentional actor (i.e., didn’t breach intentionally)?

Why does that weigh differently than in Whitlock?

Cooperative InsuranceCooperative Insurance – Enforcing Clause 4(19) & – Enforcing Clause 4(19) & Burden on the CourtBurden on the Court

Why is it so burdensome for the court to order D to “keep the premises open for retail trade?”

What is likely to happen if the parties can’t agree as to the meaning of the term or on how to interpret the court’s order? Why is that a problem?

Willing v. Mazzocone Willing v. Mazzocone – still more reasons for denying – still more reasons for denying injunctionsinjunctions

• D demonstrated outside of P’s offices falsely accusing them of diverting money she paid them for W to themselves.

• Pa. SCT looks at insolvency re irreparable injury – decides not relevant

• Note – Willing is a minority approach. Most court’s factor insolvency into their decision of irreparable injury

• Other situations where bankruptcy arises as a factor in the decision to issue an injunction:• D cut and took P’s trees. P seeks an injunction requiring D to plant

replacement trees. But D is bankrupt so injunction would require spending $ on seeds, planting, etc. that D should be giving to other creditors. Will P get the injunction?

• How is that situation different from Willing?

Irreparable injury & multiplicity of suitsIrreparable injury & multiplicity of suits

What is the nature of D’s action in Willing?

How often are Ps going to have to go to court?

How big are the actual damages from each libel?

Are damages an adequate remedy?

WillingWilling: More reasons to deny injunctions - equity : More reasons to deny injunctions - equity policy & injunctions against libelpolicy & injunctions against libel

Maxim: Equity will not enjoin a libel.

Why?

1. How we originally viewed “property”

2. Libel is a fact-based inquiry

Injunctions against libel/speech – 1st amendment policy reasons to deny injunctions

SCT has strong presumption against injunctions barring speech.

This is true even if the speech is subject to subsequent criminal punishment or civil lawsuits.

Rationales supporting presumption against injunctions restricting speech (aka prior restraints)

1. Injunctions chill more speech than subsequent punishment/civil lawsuits.

2. Injunctions prohibiting speech tend to be ex ante determinations of harm.