What Does it Mean to Enjoin in Legal Terms
Enjoin is a verb meaning to prohibit by legal action. It is used in connection with injunctions and restraining orders. It is used most commonly in the injunction context, however, if an injunction has been issued with the "teeth" of contempt of court for its enforcement, a contempt proceeding can be used to enforce the order against violators and one who violates the order can be enjoined from continuing to violate it. Enjoining violators from doing the prohibited act is usually not needed once an injunction is in place.
Enjoin is commonly used as an injunctive-adjective to limit the application of the injunction to certain parties or interests:
The Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (first stage injunction) prohibits all persons "in active concert or participation" with defendants from violating a certain criminal statute.
"The defendants are enjoined and restrained . . . from infringing, in any manner, any of the claims of the ‘238 patent."
"Defendants … are enjoined and restrained from offering to the public, selling, disposing of, or claiming to authorize others to sell, license, dispose of, import, or use any system or method that infringes any claim of the ‘025 Patent . "
Not infrequently, however, an enjoining injunction can be issued to extend the effect of an injunction to parties who have not been served with the injunction and thus did not receive notice of it:
Prior to the issuance of the injunction, Judge Greene stated on the record that she would have enjoined all officers and agents of the Board, the School District, and the PCHD from taking any further actions to effectuate the contract between the School District and the PCHD. However, she decided not to do so "because that simply won’t get done and it’s too long and complicated . . . ."
The Court’s reasoning is correct, in this case, the "long and complicated" process of serving individuals with copies of the injunction would be prohibitively costly given that they are already before the Court as agents of their offices, and have personally received a copy of the order. However, should the Board, the School District, or the PCHD attempt to act in concert to violate the injunction, these parties would be well advised to review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2)(C):
When an injunction is issued, the following are deemed to be in "active concert or participation" with the enjoined party: officers, agents and employees of the enjoined party…. In addition, "any person who is in active concert or participation with [the enjoined party] shall be bound by an injunction to the same extent as the party [the enjoined party] would be so bound."
How to Legally Process an Injunction
The formal process of seeking an injunction is initiated by filing a motion with the court that requests the issuance of the injunction. The moving party usually must provide a number of documents in support of its request to the court at the time of filing the motion. These filing requirements can vary, but may include a memorandum of points and authorities, briefs or declarations of witnesses. In particular, the moving party will be required to specify the grounds under which it is requesting the injunction, and the specific provisions it wants the court to enjoin. The moving party is also required to list all of the known parties who are likely to be harmed if the injunction is not issued.
A hearing is usually set by the court and a notice of the date is given to the parties. If the motion is filed on an ex parte basis (which is not often the case), it may only be given a short notice and the court could take swift action. For typical motion court appearances, parties are given at least 16 days’ notice of the hearing date. The non-moving party will have the opportunity to file its own papers with the court prior to the hearing. On the date set, a judge will hear both sides and determine whether there are grounds to issue the injunction.
Courts do not routinely issue injunctions, and even a limited injunction is a severe remedy that is only granted when the party seeking the injunction is able to show that there is a strong likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits and is likely to suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
The Various Types of Injunctions in Court
The most common type of injunction is the temporary restraining order (TRO), an urgent form of injunction that takes effect immediately. TROs are often issued to preserve the current state of affairs and prevent irreversible damage to a party’s legal rights. Because TROs require giving notice to the defendant and going through a hearing, TROs usually last only until a preliminary injunction hearing can take place. Generally, a TRO expires after ten days unless a preliminary injunction hearing is held prior and it is extended.
A preliminary injunction is more permanent than a TRO but still temporary and may be used to maintain the status quo pending an appeal or during the interior of litigation. A final injunction is a permanent order issued at the end of litigation after all issues in the case are resolved. A permanent injunction imposes a continuing obligation on the enjoined party.
An ex parte injunctive order may be granted without notifying the other party. Examples include TROs and other emergency situations where the party must first proceed without notice.
A mandatory injunction compels the enjoined party to perform a certain act or to reverse a prior act. A prohibitory injunction, by contrast, restrains the enjoined party from committing an act. For example, a mandatory injunction might require a business to hire more employees, while a prohibitory injunction might prevent it from doing so.
When is an Injunction Granted Legally
In deciding whether to grant an injunction, courts will generally consider:
- Whether or not there is a likelihood of irreparable harm, that is, whether the applicant can demonstrate that if the injunction is not granted that it will suffer some injury that cannot be compensated for in dollars;
- Whether the harm that would be suffered by the applicant if the injunction was refused, would outweigh the harm caused to the other party if the injunction was granted; and
- Whether the granting of the injunction would be in the public interest.
The Implications of an Injunction in Law
As a consequence of the issuance of an injunction, the defendant must comply with the court’s order, under penalty of contempt. An example of an injunction that warrants assessment of damages is an injunction prohibiting the defendant from maintaining a nuisance on his or her premises. In such event, damages would be assessed against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff for the plaintiff’s costs of cleaning up the nuisance, if the defendant refuses to do it. Failing to comply with the terms of an injunction is contempt of court. However, the injunction itself provides for a civil contempt remedy .
Also, as a part of an injunction, a plaintiff may seek that the defendant be compelled to surrender part of his or her property to the plaintiff, and may demand that the defendant quit using the enjoined property and refrain from further use of it. If the injunction is breached, whether for non-payment of money or otherwise, the injured party may ask the court for a compensating payment by the defendant. The pleading can also ask for an assessment of damages suffered. The awarding of damages is discretionary. The damages awarded, if any, are assessed not only for the cost of restoring property, but also for the rental value lost during the period of non-compliance.
How to Legally Challenge an Injunction
If the party named in the injunction believes that the grounds for its issuance are not sound, it has a right to challenge the enjoinment in Court. Successful challenges have taken the form of many different procedural devices, for instance by showing that the Notice of Motion was not properly served, by producing evidence that the judicial officer did not have jurisdiction to issue the order, or by arguing that the order in question was not made in accordance with judicial procedure. Properly pleading these challenges is important to success in quashing an injunction, as improper pleading may result in dismissal.
There are also some bases of challenging injunctions in the body of evidence that can act as a significant barrier to their enforcement. For instance, an order may be challenged by showing that the order threatened rights that were entitled to greater protections than the moving party’s rights. An injunction may also be challenged by showing that the order was overly broad in enjoining the Respondent from an unjustified amount of actions. Because courts are protective of their power, and of the rights of the parties appearing before them, it is likely that any Order invalidated in this fashion will be tossed out quickly and efficiently.
Recent Injunction Cases Involving Enjoinment
Enjoining the enforcement of a law when there is a colorable claim that the law is unconstitutional has a long and storied history. In California, as elsewhere, the leading federal cases include Black v. Conejo Valley Unified School District (589 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1978); American Civil Liberties Union Fund of California v. United States Information Agency (829 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1987); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco (745 F.Supp. 1417 (N.D.Cal. 1990)). A recent important case from San Francisco is Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco v. City and County of San Francisco (2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073). The Archbishop involved a church’s construction of a multi-family housing complex on a portion of the site of its Archdiocese headquarters in San Francisco. Much of the long litigation over this project has involved the city’s project approval process. Initially, although the church had gone through a long conditional use permit process, the Vice-Mayor of San Francisco decided that a further, more rigorous environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act would be required. After a period of litigation, the new environmental review process concluded with a decision by the first level of the city’s land use review that the project would have no significant environmental impacts. However, a lawsuit was filed challenging the parking provided for the project under an ordinance requiring a residential project to provide parking for at least one-half of its units. The California Court of Appeal in Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco noted this history, including a long parceling out of litigation over the various approvals, and held that an earlier order enjoining the enforcement of the parking ordinance in the case should also preclude the parking challenge . As part of this decision, the court of appeal held that where a rezoning effort is cited to support the challenge, the lack of findings on the parking issue precluded raising that issue in support of the rezoning challenge. Another recently decided California state appellate case addresses another possible basis for enjoining a legal proceeding, the involuntary commitment of an individual as a sexually violent predator under California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 6500 et seq. In re Wright (2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 8779) deals with the rights of sexually violent predators involuntarily committed to the Atascadero State Hospital and challenges to the relatively short period currently legislatively authorized (six months) when each individual is being examined to determine his or her likely dangerousness and amenability to treatment. The sixth month period is constitutionally challenged. The individual in the case was recognized by the court as a "dangerous person," but alleged that several years of commitment was sufficient to make this determination. The commitment proceedings are required to bear a reasonable proximity to the determination that the individual is dangerous. The California Court of Appeal, Division 2, held that the trial court need not conclusively find the individual dangerous but was required to make a preliminary finding of likely dangerousness, based on a review of the entire file setting forth the clinical history of the individual and of the assessment by reviewing professionals. The underlying principle in these separate state court decisions is the need to assess very difficult questions of law and fact in a realistic time frame.