motion practice i - tros and preliminary injunctions
TRANSCRIPT
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Part of the NEWBIE LITIGATOR SCHOOL 2015 Series
Premier Date: October 6, 2015
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
MEET THE FACULTY
PANELISTSChris Heintskill Levenfeld Pearlstein LLCRobert Michaels Robinson Curley & Clayton P.C.Randall Warner Judge of the Superior Court of Arizona
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
MODERATORJohn Martin,
MartinSirott LLC
2
Practical and entertaining education for business owners and executives, Accredited Investors, and their legal and
financial advisors.
For more information, visit www.financialpoisewebinars.com
DISCLAIMER:
THE MATERIAL IN THIS PRESENTATION IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE. YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE WHAT
MAY BE BEST FOR YOUR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
3
ABOUT THIS SERIESMotion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
4
This series is targeted to attorneys who are just starting to get involved in civil litigation, or who could use a refresher on some litigation fundamentals. The purpose is to provide an introduction to various different components and parts of litigation – from the basic rules of civil procedure and evidence, to dispositive motions, through trial, and on to appeal and post-judgment collection work. The series is best viewed as a whole, building from one session to the next.
EPISODES IN THIS SERIES
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
(Dates below are premier dates; all webinars also available on demand)
5
EPISODE #1 Federal Civil Procedure Rule Refresher 8/18/15
EPISODE #2 Discovery Practice 8/26/15
EPISODE #3 Evidence Rule Refresher 9/3/15
EPISODE #4 Mediation Basics 9/10/15
EPISODE #5 Working with Experts
9/22/15
EPISODE #6 Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions 10/6/15
EPISODE #7 Motion Practice II - Motions to Dismiss and Summary Judgement
10/20/15
EPISODE #8 Anatomy of a Trial 10/27/15
EPISODE #9 Appellate Practice – 101 11/3/15
EPISODE #10 Post-Judgment Proceedings & Collections
11/11/15
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
ABOUT THIS WEBINAR
6
What do you do when you need relief from the courts now!? This session will guide you through procedures seeking temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Our panelists will discuss both how to prevail on these motions, as well as how best to defeat them.
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
When Should You Consider Moving for a TRO or Preliminary
Injunction?
7
• Basic Requirement: Need to Preserve Status Quo- Threat of right being violated that cannot be remedied later
Disclosures of trade secrets/Other confidential information
Unfair competition/Violation of noncompete agreements
Sale of real estate
- Usually seeking to prevent action. Mandatory injunctions, requiring action, are disfavored
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
TRO and Preliminary Injunction Differences
8
G TRO Seeks Immediate Relief Sometimes obtained without notice
G Scope of Hearing on TRO Usually More Limited May be Unable to Present Substantial Evidence
G TRO Shorter in Duration Requires quick follow-up
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
You Want to Hold Everything,So Where Do You Start?
9
Preparation of Verified Pleadings/Affidavits Proposed Order Spelling out Relief Requested Notice (if Any) to Other Side
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
What Notice to be Provided
10
Notice is Generally Desirable Provided with other motions Due process requires elsewhere
Countervailing Considerations TROs frequently time sensitive May be threat of additional harm
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Special Considerations for Injunctive Relief
11
Factors that May Make Injunction Easier:— Contractual provisions reflecting agreement to
injunction or that breach of particular provisions not remediable by monetary damages
— Statutes may expressly provide for injunctive relief
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
What if There’s an Arbitration Clause?
12
o Revised Uniform Arbitration Act authorizes grant of injunctive relief to preserve status quo until arbitrator is appointed
o Injunction likely to be dissolved upon appointment unless arbitrator continues
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Making Your Case for Immediate Injunctive Relief
13
Know What You Need to Show: Right needing protection Likelihood of Success Irreparable Harm/Inadequate remedy at law Balance of harms/public interest (where applicable)
Know How You Need to Show It Procedures for Emergency Relief Differ from Court to Court Evidentiary Hearing on TRO May Not Be Required or Permitted
Know The Costs of Obtaining Relief Bond requirement in many instances
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
You’ve Won. Now What?
14
Get the Order Right• TRO usually must specify
reasons for entry
• Prohibited conduct should be described in reasonable detail
• Posting bond may be necessary prerequisite
Additional Proceedings After TRO• Provide notice of order to
affected parties
• Expedited exchanges of information
• Scheduling of further proceedings to extend TRO or for preliminary injunction
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
You’ve Lost. What Next?
15
Possibility of motion for preliminary injunction after TRO denied
Was ruling based upon lack of notice/emergency or substantive defect?
Can relief be obtained by scheduling prompt (though not immediate) preliminary injunctive proceedings?
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Is Appeal Possible?
16
• Some Jurisdictions (including Illinois) Permit both Grants and Denials of TROs to be Appealed using Expedited Procedures. See Ill. S. Ct. Rule 307(d).
• Federal Rules do not Permit Denial (or Grant) of TRO to be Appealed Absent Exceptional Circumstances
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Defending Against Claims to Immediate Injunctive Relief
17
Deciding What to Fight• What makes status quo inequitable?
• Can matter be resolved in client’s favor with more substantial record if TRO is uncontested?
• Is negotiated resolution possible?
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Defending Against Claims to Immediate Injunctive Relief
18
Deciding How to Fight• What are your best defenses to the claim and to
the relief sought?
• What record can you put before the court?
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
What Do You Need in Defense?
19
Answer to factual claims, supported by verification/evidence
Equitable defensesAvailability of monetary reliefUnclean hands
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Also Helpful in Defense
20
Brief Addressing Legal Claims and Limitations of Relief Consider including motion to dismiss, if
available
Understanding of harms from injunction to use in setting bond
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
What Can be Done if Your Client is Enjoined
21
•Motions to Dissolve TROs
• Stays/Appeals of Preliminary Injunctions
•Damages for Improperly Issued Injunctions
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Enforcement of Injunctions
22
Keep in Mind The Basics: Injunctions are court orders Enforceable in contempt
proceedings before the court entering the injunction
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
Enforcement Concerns
23
• Injunctive Relief is Subject to Jurisdictional Limits
Full faith and credit . . . does not mean that States must adopt the practices of other States regarding the time, manner, and mechanisms for enforcing judgments. Enforcement measures do not travel with the sister state judgment as preclusive effects do; such measures remain subject to the evenhanded control of forum law. Baker by Thomas v. Gen. Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 235, (1998)
• Finality of Decision May Affect Faith and Credit Afforded Orders
MORE ABOUT THE FACULTYJOHN MARTIN
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
24
John Martin is a member of MartinSirott LLC, a firm he founded in 2009. He has over twenty years of experience in representing clients in both trial and appellate courts, and has obtained successful results in all stages of the litigation process from initial motion practice through appeal. His practice is devoted to complex commercial disputes, with principal emphasis in fiduciary and financial litigation. He has substantial experience in defending against class, shareholder, and derivative actions, including defending claims against individual corporate officers and condominium association board members sued in derivate claims. John is also a frequent author and speaker on issues relating to professional ethics, including ethical issues associated with attorney marketing and attorney fee arrangements. He currently serves as chair of the Chicago Bar Association’s Professional Fees committee, in which capacity he arbitrates and mediates attorney fee disputes, and has previously served as chair of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation’s Ethics and Professionalism Committee.
Before founding MartinSirott LLC, John was an associate and partner at Schiff Hardin LLP in Chicago and a law clerk for a federal district court judge.
MORE ABOUT THE FACULTYCHRIS HEINTSKILL
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
25
Chris Heintskill is a partner in the Litigation Group of Levenfeld Pearlstein LLC. He bases his practice primarily on real-estate disputes involving large and middle-market clients. This includes brokerage-commission litigation, developer liability, commercial foreclosures, note sales, and representing homeowners and condominium associations in lawsuits under the Illinois Condominium Property Act. Chris has successfully tried cases to verdict, and has arbitrated a number of matters before the American Arbitration Association and various other self-regulatory agencies.
Chris also has significant experience litigating temporary restraining orders, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and other equitable-relief cases that require creative solutions and the ability to think “out of the box.”
MORE ABOUT THE FACULTYROBERT MICHAELS
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
26
Rob is a shareholder at Robinson Curley & Clayton P.C., a leading Chicago-based litigation boutique.
Rob counsels and litigates for clients in a wide variety of complex commercial litigation matters, including fraud, RICO, shareholder disputes, professional liability and other claims arising from corporate looting and insolvencies, as well as a range of software and technology matters. Rob has practiced in state and federal courts around the country and has successfully argued a number of federal appeals.
Before joining RCC, Rob was a Staff Attorney and Project Director at the Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest, a Bigelow Teaching Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, an associate at Mayer Brown, and a law clerk for a federal district court judge.
MORE ABOUT THE FACULTYJUDGE RANDALL WARNER
Motion Practice I- TROs and Preliminary Injunctions
27
[email protected] H. Warner was appointed Judge of the Superior Court of Arizona by Governor Janet Napolitano in August 2007. He has served on family court, criminal court and civil court assignments. He is currently the Civil Presiding Judge in Maricopa County and has a complex civil calendar. He chairs the Court’s Commercial Court Practices and Procedures Committee.
Before joining the bench, Judge Warner was a partner at Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, LLC where he had an appellate and commercial litigation practice. Judge Warner has served on numerous committees for the Arizona State Bar and Arizona Supreme Court. He speaks frequently on civil practice issues, legal writing and effective advocacy.
Judge Warner’s legal publications include All Mixed Up About Contract Interpretation: When Is Contract Interpretation A Legal Question And When Is It A Fact Question?, 5 Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 81 (2010) and All Mixed Up About Mixed Questions, 7 J. App. Prac. & Process 101 (2005). He has written a number of articles for the Arizona Attorney magazine, including Parenting from the Bench, Ariz. Att’y (July 2010), The Seven Deadly Judges, Ariz. Att’y (March 2005), and Cites for Sore Eyes, Ariz. Att’y (December 2004). He currently writes a Civil Practice Pointers column for the Arizona Attorney.
www.financialpoisewebinars.com
I
The ChamberWise™ Education Consortium is a resource for Chambers of Commerce to provide its members with valuable member benefits by offering relevant business education webinars; and generate revenue for the Chamber as well.
www.chamberwise.org29
50,000 +Weekly
newslettersubscribers
15,000 +website Visitors
per month
10,000 +webinar
attendees per year
business owners & executives
Attorneys Accountants Bankers Business
brokers Consultants Commercial
lenders debt traders Developers Entrepreneurs
high net worth investors
50,000+ WEEKLY NEWSLETTER SUBSCRIBERS15,000+ MONTHLY WEBSITE VISITORS10,000+ YEARLY WEBINAR ATTENDEES
PODCASTS, E-BOOKS AND MORE
educating various
constituents about risks & rewards
involving financially distressed
businesses
educating investors
about optionsbeyond
publicly traded securities
educating business owners
& executives
About Financial Poise™
DailyDAC, LLC, d/b/a Financial Poise™ provides continuing education to business owners and executives, investors, and their respective trusted
advisors. Its websites, webinars, and books provide Plain English, sometimes entertaining, explanations about legal, financial, and other subjects of
interest to these audiences.
32
IMPORTANT NOTE:
THE MATERIAL IN THIS PRESENTATION IS FOR GENERAL EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED LEGAL, INVESTMENT, FINANCIAL, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ADVICE ON WHICH YOU SHOULD RELY.
YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR TO DETERMINE WHAT MAY BE BEST FOR YOUR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS. 33