Case Title: Marathon Construction & Demolition, LLC  v. King Metal Recycling & Processing Corp.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1120310

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 
05/17/2013 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 
300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, 
Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern 
Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1120310 and 1120368 
Marathon Construction and Demolition, LLC, 
and 
OAX, 
LLC 
v. 
King Metal Recycling and Processing Corporation 
Appeals from Limestone C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-12-0170) 
WISE, J u s t i c e . 
Marathon C o n s t r u c t i o n and 
D e m o l i t i o n , LLC 
("Marathon"), 
and OAX, LLC ("OAX"), t h e 
d e f e n d a n t s below, a p p e a l 
from an 
o r d e r 
e n t e r e d 
b y t h e Limestone 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t 
g r a n t i n g 
i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f t o 
t h e p l a i n t i f f below, K i n g M e t a l R e c y c l i n g 
1120310; 1120368 
and P r o c e s s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n 
("King M e t a l " ) . 
We 
r e v e r s e 
and 
remand. 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
On August 20, 
2012, 
K i n g M e t a l sued Marathon and 
OAX, 
a l l e g i n g b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , b r e a c h of the i m p l i e d covenant of 
good f a i t h and 
f a i r d e a l i n g , u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t , i n t e r f e r e n c e 
w i t h c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s , and b r e a c h of f i d u c i a r y d u t y / d u t y 
of 
l o y a l t y . 
K i n g M e t a l a l l e g e d t h a t i t had e n t e r e d i n t o 
an 
agreement w i t h Marathon t o p u r c h a s e , d e m o l i s h , and 
r e d e v e l o p 
the former D e l p h i I n d u s t r i a l Complex i n Limestone County 
("the 
D e l p h i P r o j e c t " ) . 
K i n g M e t a l a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t OAX was formed 
by 
i t and Marathon as the 
e n t i t y t h r o u g h which 
t h e y would 
complete 
the D e l p h i P r o j e c t . 
K i n g M e t a l 
a l l e g e d 
t h a t i t f i l e d 
the 
c o m p l a i n t 
a f t e r 
becoming concerned 
t h a t i t was 
b e i n g 
" f r o z e n o u t " 
of 
the 
D e l p h i 
P r o j e c t . 
A t 
the same t i m e , 
K i n g 
M e t a l 
f i l e d 
an 
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a prejudgment attachment 
of any net 
p r o f i t s 
g e n e r a t e d 
by 
the D e l p h i P r o j e c t , 
" t o 
i d e n t i f y 
the 
n a t u r e , 
amount, and 
l o c a t i o n of t h e s e f u n d s , and p r e v e n t them 
from 
b e i n g 
f u r t h e r 
d i s b u r s e d , c o n c e a l e d 
or d i s p o s e d 
of by 
the 
2 
1120310; 1120368 
d e f e n d a n t s . " 
I t a l s o 
f i l e d 
a 
motion 
f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n 
"a) r e q u i r i n g Defendants t o i d e n t i f y , d e s c r i b e , and 
produce s t a t e m e n t s 
r e g a r d i n g any 
a c c o u n t ( s ) 
which 
have c o n t a i n e d or c o n t a i n any proceeds of the D e l p h i 
P r o j e c t ; b) 
f r e e z i n g any net p r o f i t s of the D e l p h i 
P r o j e c t which 
are i n the p o s s e s s i o n or c o n t r o l 
of 
the Defendants and/or any 
f i n a n c i a l 
i n s t i t u t i o n ( s ) 
or 
o u t s i d e t h i r d p a r t y ( i e s ) under the d i r e c t i o n or 
c o n t r o l of the Defendants; 
and c) o r d e r t h a t the net 
proceeds 
of the D e l p h i P r o j e c t not be d i s b u r s e d i n 
any manner whatsoever, 
i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d t o 
any 
of 
the 
p a r t i e s 
of 
t h i s 
case 
or 
any 
a g e n t s , 
p r i n c i p l e s , 
or 
a f f i l i a t e d 
e n t i t i e s 
t h e r e o f , 
u n t i l 
f u r t h e r o r d e r of the C o u r t . " 
On August 23, 2012, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r f o r 
a w r i t of s e i z u r e i n which i t o r d e r e d t h a t the net proceeds 
of 
the 
D e l p h i 
P r o j e c t be 
s e i z e d . 
On 
August 
28, 
2012, 
the 
d e f e n d a n t s 
f i l e d a motion 
t o quash the o r d e r f o r a w r i t 
o f 
s e i z u r e , a r g u i n g , i n p a r t , t h a t the w r i t was 
the 
i n c o r r e c t 
p r o c e d u r e f o r the remedy sought and a s s e r t i n g t h a t K i n g M e t a l 
s h o u l d have i n s t e a d r e q u e s t e d a temporary 
r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r . 
K i n g M e t a l 
f i l e d a motion 
i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
motion t o quash the o r d e r f o r a w r i t of s e i z u r e . 
The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t s c h e d u l e d 
a h e a r i n g on the motions f o r September 
4, 
2012.
1 
1The 
r e c o r d 
b e f o r e 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
does 
not 
i n c l u d e 
a 
t r a n s c r i p t of t h a t h e a r i n g . 
3 
1120310; 1120368 
On 
October 
2, 
2012, 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e n t e r e d 
an 
o r d e r 
s e t t i n g a s i d e the o r d e r f o r a w r i t of s e i z u r e and d i s p o s i n g of 
o t h e r i s s u e s r a i s e d by the p a r t i e s . 
That o r d e r p r o v i d e d , 
i n 
r e l e v a n t 
p a r t : 
"The 
D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n t o Quash t h i s 
C o u r t ' s 
Order of 
S e i z u r e 
or Prejudgment Attachment 
h a v i n g 
been s e t b e f o r e 
t h i s C o u r t on September 4, 
2012 
and 
a t 
t h a t time the 
p a r t i e s made known t o the 
C o u r t  
t h a t an agreement had been r e a c h e d f o r the 
u l t i m a t e  
d i s p o s i t i o n of the i s s u e s r a i s e d by the motion which 
was 
p r e s e n t e d 
f o r 
r e c o r d 
a t 
t h a t 
time 
and 
a f t e r 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n of same i t i s t h e r e f o r e , 
"ORDERED BY THE COURT as f o l l o w s : 
"1. That t h i s C o u r t ' s August 23, 
2012 
Order of 
W r i t of S e i z u r e i s s e t 
a s i d e ; 
"2. Defendants s h a l l produce s e l e c t e d e l e c t r o n i c 
and/or h a r d copy r e c o r d s 
and documents r e l a t e d t o 
the 
D e l p h i 
P r o j e c t , 
s u f f i c i e n t 
t o 
i d e n t i f y 
the 
n a t u r e , purpose, payee/payor, and amount of any 
and 
a l l 
funds 
r e c e i v e d 
or 
d i s b u r s e d , 
d i r e c t l y 
or 
i n d i r e c t l y , 
by 
any 
of 
the 
P a r t i e s 
or 
any 
o t h e r 
i n d i v i d u a l ( s ) or e n t i t y ( i e s ) i n v o l v e d i n the 
D e l p h i 
P r o j e c t , as d e f i n e d i n the V e r i f i e d C o m p l a i n t . 
I t 
s h a l l be u n d e r s t o o d t h a t ' n a t u r e ' and ' p u r p o s e ' mean 
n o t a t i o n s s u f f i c i e n t t o e x p l a i n what the payment 
was 
f o r . 
The 
s e l e c t e d document(s) p r o d u c e d s h a l l show 
a l l monies r e c e i v e d or d i s b u r s e d , 
a l l t r a n s a c t i o n s 
consummated, 
a l l income 
or 
funds 
r e c e i v e d , 
a l l 
d i s b u r s e m e n t s or funds p a i d , and the n a t u r e , amount, 
and complete a c t i v i t y f o r a l l a c c o u n t s o p e r a t e d 
or 
m a i n t a i n e d i n c o n n e c t i o n 
w i t h the D e l p h i 
P r o j e c t ; 
"  
4 
1120310; 1120368 
"7. Defendants have r e p r e s e n t e d 
and 
w a r r a n t e d 
t o 
the C o u r t t h a t p r e s e n t l y t h e r e a r e 
and have been no 
net 
p r o f i t s 
( d e f i n e d as e x c e s s funds e x c e e d i n g t h e 
t o t a l 
debt and o p e r a t i n g 
expenses o f t h e D e l p h i 
P r o j e c t ) from t h e D e l p h i P r o j e c t . 
From t h e date o f  
t h i s 
Order 
f o r w a r d , Defendants a r e e n j o i n e d from  
t a k i n g , 
r e q u e s t i n g , 
d i s t r i b u t i n g , 
o r a l l o w i n g o r  
d i r e c t i n g t h e d i s b u r s e m e n t o f any n e t p r o f i t s 
from 
 
the 
D e l p h i P r o j e c t u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r o f t h e C o u r t  
or w r i t t e n agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s 
( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n 
o r i g i n a l ; emphasis added.) 
On November 13, 2012, 
K i n g M e t a l f i l e d a m o t i o n , which i t 
says was f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7, A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., f o r 
a 
minor amendment o f t h e 
October 2, 2012, 
o r d e r . P a r a g r a p h 3 
o f 
the o r d e r p r o v i d e d : 
"The 
r e c o r d s and documents p r o d u c e d by Defendants 
p u r s u a n t 
t o 
t h i s 
Order 
s h a l l 
be 
p r o d u c e d 
as 
' A t t o r n e y s ' and C l i e n t s ' 
Eyes 
O n l y . ' 
P l a i n t i f f 
[ K i n g M e t a l ] and i t s 
d i r e c t o r s , o f f i c e r s , 
employees, 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a g e n t s , and p r i n c i p a l s s h a l l n o t 
be 
e n t i t l e d 
t o make o r r e c e i v e any c o p i e s o f t h e 
r e c o r d s and documents produced, and s h a l l n o t be 
e n t i t l e d 
t o make any notes o f t h e r e c o r d s and 
documents produced. 
(This 
r e s t r i c t i o n 
does n o t 
a p p l y t o c o u n s e l f o r P l a i n t i f f 
[ K i n g M e t a l ] , who 
s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o make and r e c e i v e c o p i e s and 
make n o t e s ; however, t h o s e c o p i e s and n o t e s 
s h a l l 
not be p r o v i d e d t o [ K i n g M e t a l ] o r i t s d i r e c t o r s , 
o f f i c e r s , p r i n c i p a l s , employees, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , o r 
agents) 
" 
(Emphasis 
added.) 
K i n g M e t a l 
asked 
t h a t t h e words "or 
r e c e i v e " be s t r i c k e n from t h e second s e n t e n c e and t h a t t h e 
5 
1120310; 1120368 
t h i r d sentence be amended a c c o r d i n g l y . 
On November 16, 
2012, 
the 
t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d the m o t i o n . 
On November 28, 2012, 
K i n g M e t a l 
f i l e d a m o t i o n , 
a s k i n g 
t h a t the d e f e n d a n t s be " e n j o i n e d from s e l l i n g , 
t r a n s f e r r i n g , 
l e a s i n g , or encumbering any p o r t i o n of the former D e l p h i 
s i t e 
absent f u r t h e r o r d e r of the C o u r t or w r i t t e n agreement of the 
p a r t i e s . " 
I n 
s u p p o r t 
of 
the 
m o t i o n , 
i t a s s e r t e d 
t h a t 
redevelopment of the p r o p e r t y on w h i c h the D e l p h i P r o j e c t i s 
l o c a t e d was 
p r o c e e d i n g 
under the 
c o n t r o l of the 
d e f e n d a n t s 
s u b j e c t t o the October 2, 2012, 
o r d e r , w i t h the c a v e a t s 
t h a t 
t h e r e had not been any net p r o f i t s and t h a t , i f t h e r e were any 
net p r o f i t s , t h e y would be f r o z e n p e n d i n g f u r t h e r o r d e r of the 
c o u r t or agreement of the p a r t i e s . 
K i n g M e t a l a l s o a s s e r t e d 
t h a t , i n s e e k i n g the October 2, 2012, 
o r d e r , i t was 
t r y i n g t o 
a l l o w the d e m o l i t i o n work t o p r o c e e d on the D e l p h i P r o j e c t , 
w h i l e 
s t i l l p r o t e c t i n g the r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s u n t i l 
those 
r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s c o u l d be r e s o l v e d , and t h a t e v e r y 
i n d i c a t i o n 
a t the time was 
t h a t the d e f e n d a n t s i n t e n d e d t o t a k e down the 
b u i l d i n g s on the s i t e and t o s e l l the s c r a p m a t e r i a l s and o l d 
equipment 
f o r 
p r o f i t . 
However, 
i t a s s e r t e d 
t h a t 
i t 
had 
l e a r n e d t h a t d e m o l i t i o n work a t the s i t e had s l o w e d or s t o p p e d 
6 
1120310; 1120368 
and 
t h a t i t appeared t h a t the d e f e n d a n t s were p r e p a r i n g 
t o 
s e l l , 
t r a n s f e r , or l e a s e some or a l l the p r o p e r t y t o 
t h i r d 
p a r t i e s . 
That same day, 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
g r a n t e d 
K i n g 
M e t a l ' s 
m o t i o n , s t a t i n g 
s i m p l y : 
" [ K i n g M e t a l ' s ] m o t i o n t o e n j o i n s a l e , t r a n s f e r , 
l e a s e or encumbrance of the D e l p h i P r o p e r t y f i l e d by 
K i n g M e t a l R e c y c l i n g & P r o c e s s i n g Corp. i s hereby 
g r a n t e d . " 
On November 29, 2012, the d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d an emergency motion 
to d i s s o l v e the o r d e r , and K i n g M e t a l 
f i l e d an o p p o s i t i o n t o 
t h a t m o t i o n . 
On December 17, 2012, 
the t r i a l c o u r t c o n d u c t e d 
a h e a r i n g and d e n i e d the d e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n t o d i s s o l v e the 
November 28, 2012, 
o r d e r . 
These a p p e a l s 
f o l l o w e d .
2 
We have 
c o n s o l i d a t e d 
the 
a p p e a l s 
f o r 
the 
purpose 
of 
w r i t i n g 
one 
o p i n i o n . 
S t a n d a r d of Review 
"'We 
have o f t e n s t a t e d : 
"The d e c i s i o n 
to 
g r a n t 
or 
t o 
deny 
a 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n 
i s w i t h i n 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
sound d i s c r e t i o n . 
I n r e v i e w i n g an 
o r d e r 
g r a n t i n g 
a 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n , 
the 
C o u r t 
d e t e r m i n e s whether the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
2The d e f e n d a n t s s e p a r a t e l y a p p e a l e d b o t h the t r i a l c o u r t ' s 
g r a n t 
of the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n 
and 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
r e f u s a l 
t o d i s s o l v e the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . 
See 
Rule 
4 ( a ) ( 1 ) A , A l a . R. App. 
P. 
7 
1120310; 1120368 
exceeded t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . " S o u t h T r u s t Bank  
of Alabama, N.A. 
v. W e b b - S t i l e s Co., 
931 
So. 
2d 706, 
709 
( A l a . 2005). 
"'A 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d 
be 
i s s u e d 
o n l y 
when 
the 
p a r t y 
s e e k i n g 
an 
i n j u n c t i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s : 
"'"'(1) 
t h a t 
w i t h o u t 
the 
i n j u n c t i o n 
the 
[ p a r t y ] 
would 
s u f f e r 
i r r e p a r a b l e 
i n j u r y ; 
(2) 
t h a t the 
[ p a r t y ] has 
no adequate 
remedy 
a t 
law; 
(3) 
t h a t 
the 
[ p a r t y ] has a t l e a s t a r e a s o n a b l e 
chance of s u c c e s s on the 
u l t i m a t e 
m e r i t s of h i s c a s e ; and 
(4) 
t h a t 
the 
h a r d s h i p 
imposed 
on 
the 
[ p a r t y o p p o s i n g 
the 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n ] 
by 
the 
i n j u n c t i o n 
would not 
u n r e a s o n a b l y 
outweigh 
the 
b e n e f i t 
a c c r u i n g 
t o 
the 
[ p a r t y s e e k i n g the i n j u n c t i o n ] . ' " 
"'Ormco Corp. v. Johns, 869 
So. 
2d 
1109, 
1113 
( A l a . 
2003) 
( q u o t i n g 
P e r l e y 
v. 
 
Tapscan, I n c . , 
646 
So. 
2d 
585, 
587 
( A l a . 
1 9 9 4 ) ) . ' " 
C o l b e r t Cnty. Bd. 
of Educ. v. James, 83 
So. 
3d 473, 
477-78 
( A l a . 2011) 
( q u o t i n g H o l i d a y 
I s l e , LLC 
v. A d k i n s , 12 So. 
3d 
1173, 
1175-76 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ) . 
D i s c u s s i o n 
The 
d e f e n d a n t s 
argue 
t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e r r e d 
i n 
e n t e r i n g the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n and t h a t the 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d 
be 
d i s s o l v e d . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e y c o n t e n d 
8 
1120310; 1120368 
t h a t i t d i d not comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 65, A l a . 
R. C i v . P., f o r e n t e r i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n because the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
i s s u e d 
the 
i n j u n c t i o n 
w i t h o u t 
c o n d u c t i n g 
a 
h e a r i n g , 
w i t h o u t 
r e q u i r i n g 
a 
s e c u r i t y 
bond, 
and 
w i t h o u t 
s e t t i n g f o r t h the reasons f o r the i n j u n c t i o n and the 
s p e c i f i c 
a c t s t o be e n j o i n e d .
3 
For the reasons 
s e t f o r t h below, 
we 
agree. 
However, we must f i r s t d i s p o s e of an argument r a i s e d 
by K i n g M e t a l . 
K i n g M e t a l argues 
t h a t the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s November 
28, 
2012, 
o r d e r d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a new 
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n 
and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 
65 was not n e c e s s a r y . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , K i n g M e t a l contends t h a t 
the October 2, 2012, o r d e r , which e n j o i n e d c e r t a i n 
a c t i v i t i e s 
of 
the d e f e n d a n t s , 
was 
the 
c o n t r o l l i n g 
o r d e r and 
t h a t the 
November 
28, 
2012, 
o r d e r 
was 
m e r e l y 
a 
c l a r i f i c a t i o n 
and 
enforcement 
of 
the 
p r e l i m i n a r y - i n j u n c t i o n 
a s p e c t 
of 
the 
October 
2, 
2012, 
o r d e r 
r a t h e r 
than 
a 
new 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , K i n g M e t a l a s s e r t s t h a t i t s motion 
3The d e f e n d a n t s make o t h e r c o m p l a i n t s about the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s November 28, 2012, o r d e r , i n c l u d i n g arguments t h a t the 
t r i a l c o u r t d i d not comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n 
H o l i d a y 
I s l e , 
s u p r a . 
Because the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e 
t o 
comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s 
of R u l e 
65 i s d i s p o s i t i v e , 
we 
need not r e a c h the o t h e r arguments. 
9 
1120310; 1120368 
was a motion s e e k i n g the amendment of an o r d e r and was 
f i l e d 
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7, A l a . R. C i v . P., r a t h e r than a motion f o r 
a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n 
f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 65. 
K i n g M e t a l s t y l e d i t s 
motion as a "Motion t o E n j o i n S a l e , 
T r a n s f e r , Lease, o r Encumbrance of the D e l p h i P r o p e r t y Absent 
C o u r t Order," and i t s t a t e d , i n the f i r s t l i n e of the m o t i o n , 
t h a t i t 
was p r o c e e d i n g " [ p ] u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7," A l a . R. C i v . P. 
However, 
" ' [ t ] h e 
s u b s t a n c e o f a motion and not i t s s t y l e 
d e t e r m i n e s 
what 
k i n d 
o f 
m o t i o n 
i t 
i s . ' " 
C o r n e l i u s 
v. 
 
Browning, 85 So. 3d 954, 958 n.2 
( A l a . 
2011) 
( q u o t i n g Evans v.  
W a d d e l l , 689 So. 2d 23, 26 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ) . 
A l t h o u g h K i n g M e t a l 
c i t e d R u l e 7 i n the motion and made r e f e r e n c e s t o the October 
2, 2012, o r d e r , i t 
d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y ask the t r i a l c o u r t t o 
amend, c l a r i f y , 
or e n f o r c e the October 2, 2012, o r d e r . 
In 
f a c t , 
whereas 
the October 
2, 
2012, 
o r d e r 
" e n j o i n e d [the 
d e f e n d a n t s ] from t a k i n g , r e q u e s t i n g , d i s t r i b u t i n g , o r a l l o w i n g 
or d i r e c t i n g the d i s b u r s e m e n t o f any net p r o f i t s 
from the 
D e l p h i P r o j e c t 
u n t i l 
f u r t h e r o r d e r of the C o u r t o r w r i t t e n 
agreement 
of t h e 
p a r t i e s , " 
the November 
28, 
2012, 
o r d e r 
g r a n t e d a motion i n w h i c h K i n g M e t a l sought t o e n j o i n the 
d e f e n d a n t s 
"from 
s e l l i n g , 
t r a n s f e r r i n g , 
l e a s i n g , 
o r 
10 
1120310; 1120368 
encumbering any p o r t i o n o f the former 
D e l p h i 
s i t e 
absent 
f u r t h e r 
o r d e r 
o f t h e C o u r t o r w r i t t e n agreement o f t h e 
p a r t i e s . " 
Thus, t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r , w h i c h 
f o c u s e d 
on t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e "former D e l p h i 
s i t e , " was much 
b r o a d e r than t h e October 2, 2012, o r d e r , w h i c h f o c u s e d 
s o l e l y 
on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o r d i s b u r s e m e n t o f n e t p r o f i t s from t h e 
D e l p h i P r o j e c t . A l s o , i n i t s 
November 28, 2012, m o t i o n , K i n g 
M e t a l d i d 
n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y ask t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o c l a r i f y or 
e n f o r c e t h e October 2, 2012, o r d e r , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d 
not 
s t a t e i n t h e November 
28, 2012, o r d e r 
t h a t i t was 
c l a r i f y i n g or e n f o r c i n g t h e October 2, 2012, o r d e r . 
F i n a l l y , 
d u r i n g the h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o d i s s o l v e t h e November 28, 
2012, 
o r d e r , t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t had i s s u e d a 
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n and d i d 
n o t g i v e any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t , 
by i s s u i n g t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r , i t i n t e n d e d m e r e l y t o 
c l a r i f y or e n f o r c e t h e October 2, 2012, o r d e r . 
T h e r e f o r e , we 
c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 28, 2012, o r d e r was 
a new 
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n and t h a t i t d i d n o t m e r e l y 
c l a r i f y or e n f o r c e t h e October 2, 2012, p r e l i m i n a r y - i n j u n c t i o n 
o r d e r upon w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s had agreed. 
11 
1120310; 1120368 
We 
now 
address the d e f e n d a n t s ' 
arguments t h a t the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t d i d not comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 
65, A l a . R. C i v . P., 
g o v e r n i n g 
i n j u n c t i o n s . 
F i r s t , 
the d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t d i d 
not comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of R u l e 6 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . 
R. 
C i v . 
P., because i t i s s u e d the i n j u n c t i o n w i t h i n hours 
a f t e r 
K i n g M e t a l r e q u e s t e d 
i t , w i t h o u t c o n d u c t i n g 
a h e a r i n g . 
R u l e 
65(a) ( 1 ) , A l a . R. 
C i v . P., 
p r o v i d e s 
t h a t " [ n ] o 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n 
s h a l l 
be 
i s s u e d w i t h o u t 
n o t i c e 
t o 
the 
a d v e r s e 
p a r t y . " 
In B l o u n t R e c y c l i n g , LLC v. C i t y of C u l l m a n , 884 
So. 
2d 
850, 
855 
( A l a . 2003), t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : 
"As 
the C o u r t of 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s r e c o g n i z e d 
i n 
Bamberg v. Bamberg, 441 
So. 
2d 970, 
971 
( A l a . C i v . 
App. 
1983), w h i l e R u l e 65, A l a . R. 
C i v . P., 
'does 
not 
e x p l i c i t l y 
r e q u i r e 
t h a t 
o r a l 
t e s t i m o n y 
be 
p r e s e n t e d a t a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n h e a r i n g , some 
type of e v i d e n c e w h i c h s u b s t a n t i a t e s the 
p l e a d i n g s 
i s 
i m p l i c i t l y r e q u i r e d by s u b s e c t i o n 
(a)(2) of 
the 
r u l e . ' 
The 
C o u r t 
of 
C i v i l 
A p p e a l s 
i n Bamberg 
c o n t i n u e d , 
s t a t i n g : 
'In 
o r d e r 
t o 
comply 
w i t h 
p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s , n o t i c e and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o 
be h e a r d are n e c e s s a r y under R u l e 6 5 ( a ) . ' 
I d . 
" I n t h i s case i t appears t h a t the c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
d i d 
not 
conduct 
a 
h e a r i n g 
on 
the 
Commission's 
p e t i t i o n 
f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n ; 
t h e r e f o r e , 
the 
Commission 
d i d 
not 
p r e s e n t 
any 
e v i d e n c e 
and 
B l o u n t R e c y c l i n g was 
not g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be 
h e a r d . 
The i n j u n c t i o n must be d i s s o l v e d f o r f a i l u r e 
12 
1120310; 1120368 
to comply w i t h Rule 6 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., 
and 
the 
cause remanded." 
S i m i l a r l y , i n t h i s case, i t appears t h a t the 
t r i a l c o u r t d i d 
not conduct a h e a r i n g on K i n g M e t a l ' s m o t i o n f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n . 
C l e a r l y , 
K i n g 
M e t a l , 
w h i c h 
f i l e d 
o n l y 
an 
u n v e r i f i e d motion i n s u p p o r t 
of the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , 
d i d 
not p r e s e n t 
any 
e v i d e n c e , 
and 
the d e f e n d a n t s were 
not 
g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the m o t i o n .
4 
See Bamberg v. Bamberg, 441 
So. 2d 970, 
971 
( A l a . C i v . 
App. 
1983) 
( n o t i n g t h a t " a t a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n h e a r i n g 
an 
u n v e r i f i e d 
p l e a d i n g , 
w i t h o u t 
p r o o f 
of 
i t s averments, 
i s 
i n s u f f i c i e n t i n and of i t s e l f upon which t o base the 
i s s u a n c e 
of a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n " ) . 
T h e r e f o r e , the t r i a l c o u r t d i d 
not comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s 
of Rule 
6 5 ( a ) .
5 
4 K i n g M e t a l argues t h a t the December 17, 
2012, 
h e a r i n g 
c o n s t i t u t e d 
a 
h e a r i n g 
f o r 
the 
p u r p o s e s 
of 
Rule 
6 5 ( a ) . 
However, i t does not 
c i t e any 
a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t 
of t h a t 
p r o p o s i t i o n . 
R a t h e r , 
K i n g M e t a l m e r e l y 
c i t e s 
a case 
t h a t 
a d d r e s s e s 
whether a p a r t y r e c e i v e d 
s u f f i c i e n t 
n o t i c e of 
a 
h e a r i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
i t has not c o m p l i e d w i t h Rule 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. 
P., 
and 
we 
w i l l not a d d r e s s i t s argument i n t h i s 
r e g a r d . 
5 A l t h o u g h 
Rule 
65(b) 
a l l o w s 
f o r temporary 
r e s t r a i n i n g 
o r d e r s t o be e n t e r e d w i t h o u t n o t i c e , the p a r t i e s do not appear 
to 
argue t h a t the November 28, 
2012, 
o r d e r was 
a temporary 
r e s t r a i n i n g 
o r d e r . 
13 
1120310; 1120368 
Second, the d e f e n d a n t s contend t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t d i d 
not comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 6 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . 
P., because i t i s s u e d the i n j u n c t i o n w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g K i n g 
M e t a l t o p o s t a s e c u r i t y bond b e f o r e i t i s s u e d the November 
28, 2012, p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . 
R u l e 65(c) p r o v i d e s : 
"No 
r e s t r a i n i n g 
o r d e r 
o r 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n 
s h a l l 
i s s u e e x c e p t upon the g i v i n g o f s e c u r i t y 
by 
t h e 
a p p l i c a n t , 
i n such 
sum 
as 
the 
c o u r t deems 
p r o p e r , f o r the payment of such c o s t s , damages, and 
r e a s o n a b l e 
a t t o r n e y f e e s 
as 
may 
be 
i n c u r r e d 
or 
s u f f e r e d by any 
p a r t y who 
i s found t o have been 
w r o n g f u l l y 
e n j o i n e d 
or 
r e s t r a i n e d ; 
p r o v i d e d , 
however, no such s e c u r i t y 
s h a l l be r e q u i r e d of the 
S t a t e of Alabama o r of an o f f i c e r or agency t h e r e o f , 
and 
p r o v i d e d 
f u r t h e r , 
i n the 
d i s c r e t i o n 
of 
the 
c o u r t , no such s e c u r i t y may be r e q u i r e d i n d o m e s t i c 
r e l a t i o n s c a s e s . " 
In S p i n k s v. A u t o m a t i o n P e r s o n n e l S e r v i c e s , I n c . , 49 So. 
3d 
186, 190 
( A l a . 2010), t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : 
" A l s o , 
' " t h e r e are [ o t h e r ] n e c e s s a r y e x c e p t i o n s t o 
such an a b s o l u t e h o l d i n g i n a l l cases under 
R u l e 
6 5 ( c ) , such as r e q u i r i n g o n l y a n o m i n a l s e c u r i t y , or 
where the 
l i t i g a n t i s impecunious 
or the i s s u e i s 
one 
of 
o v e r r i d i n g 
p u b l i c 
c o n c e r n . " ' 
A n d e r s [ 
v. 
 
F o w l e r ] , 
423 
So. 
2d 
[838,] 
840 
[ ( A l a . 
1982)] 
( q u o t i n g 
L i g h t s e y [ 
v. 
K e n s i n g t o n 
Mortg. 
& F i n .  
C o r p . ] , 294 A l a . [281,] 285, 315 So. 2d [431,] 
434 
[ ( 1 9 7 5 ) ] , c i t i n g i n t u r n C h a r l e s A. W r i g h t & A r t h u r 
R. 
M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e , 
C i v i l § 
2954, p. 5 2 9 ) . " 
K i n g M e t a l does not argue t h a t any of the e x c e p t i o n s t o 
the 
r e q u i r e m e n t 
of 
a 
s e c u r i t y 
bond 
a p p l y 
i n 
t h i s 
c a s e . 
14 
1120310; 1120368 
I n s t e a d , i t contends t h a t , because the October 2, 2012, o r d e r 
upon w h i c h the p a r t i e s a g r e e d d i d not r e q u i r e a bond, 
the 
November 28, 
2012, 
o r d e r , w h i c h K i n g M e t a l argues 
m e r e l y 
c l a r i f i e d or e n f o r c e d the October 2, 2012, 
o r d e r , d i d not 
r e q u i r e 
the p o s t i n g 
of a bond. 
Because 
we 
have 
a l r e a d y 
r e j e c t e d K i n g M e t a l ' s argument t h a t the November 28, 
2012, 
o r d e r 
was 
m e r e l y 
a 
c l a r i f i c a t i o n 
and 
enforcement 
o f 
the 
October 2, 2012, 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n 
r a t h e r t h a n a 
new 
p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , we l i k e w i s e r e j e c t i t s 
argument t h a t 
the November 28, 2012, o r d e r d i d not r e q u i r e the p o s t i n g o f a 
s e c u r i t y bond. 
"Alabama law ... c l e a r l y p r o v i d e s t h a t 
' [ i ] t i s 
mandatory 
t h a t s e c u r i t y be g i v e n under R u l e 6 5 ( c ) , 
" u n l e s s the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t makes a 
s p e c i f i c 
f i n d i n g 
b a s e d upon competent e v i d e n c e t h a t one o r more o f 
the e x c e p t i o n s , s t a t i n g them, do e x i s t . " ' 
A n d e r s [ 
 
v. 
F o w l e r ] , 
423 
So. 
2d 
[838,] 
840 
[ ( A l a . 
1982)] 
( q u o t i n g 
L i g h t s e y [ 
v. 
K e n s i n g t o n M o r t g . 
& F i n .  
C o r p . ] , 294 A l a . [281,] 285, 315 So. 2d [431,] 
434 
[(1975)]) 
(emphasis 
added); 
see 
a l s o 
Chunchula 
 
Energy Corp. v. C i b a - G e i g y Corp., 503 So. 2d 1211, 
1215 
( A l a . 1987) 
( s t a t i n g 
t h a t the p r o v i s i o n s 
o f 
R u l e 
65(c) 
a r e 
'mandatory'). 
F u r t h e r m o r e , 
t h i s 
C o u r t has 
l o n g 
r e c o g n i z e d the a b o v e - s t a t e d r u l e . 
See Ex p a r t e M i l l e r , 129 A l a . 130, 133, 30 So. 611, 
612 
(1901) 
( s t a t i n g 
t h a t 
' [ t ] h e r e 
can 
be 
no 
i n j u n c t i o n 
... 
u n t i l 
t h e bond 
has 
been 
g i v e n ' ) 
(quoted w i t h a p p r o v a l i n Anders, 423 So. 2d a t 840, 
and L i g h t s e y , 294 A l a . a t 284, 315 So. 2d a t 433). 
15 
1120310; 1120368 
"Here, t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
i s s u e d a p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g APS t o g i v e s e c u r i t y 
as 
mandated 
by 
R u l e 
6 5 ( c ) , 
A l a . R. 
C i v . P. 
F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
f a i l e d 
t o make 'a 
s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g based upon competent e v i d e n c e t h a t 
one 
o r more o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s , 
s t a t i n g them, do 
e x i s t . ' 
Anders, 423 So. 2d a t 840. 
As n o t e d , 
' t h e r e can be no i n j u n c t i o n ... u n t i l t h e bond has 
been g i v e n . ' 
Anders, 423 So. 2d a t 840 ( q u o t i n g Ex  
p a r t e M i l l e r , 129 A l a . a t 133, 
30 So. a t 612, q u o t e d 
w i t h a p p r o v a l i n L i g h t s e y , 294 A l a . a t 285, 315 So. 
2d a t 434). 
A c c o r d i n g l y , '[u]nder t h e c l e a r mandate 
of R u l e 6 5 ( c ) , and t h e p r e v i o u s 
d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s 
c o u r t , we have no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o r e v e r s e and 
remand.' 
Anders, 423 So. 2d a t 840; see a l s o  
Chunchula 
Energy 
Corp., 
503 So. 2d a t 1215-16 
( s t a t i n g 
t h a t 
an 
i n j u n c t i o n i s s u e d 
w i t h o u t t h e 
g i v i n g o f s e c u r i t y by t h e a p p l i c a n t 
' i s d e f e c t i v e 
and due t o be r e v e r s e d ' ) . " 
S p i n k s , 49 So. 3d a t 191. S i m i l a r l y , because t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
d i d n o t r e q u i r e K i n g M e t a l t o g i v e s e c u r i t y and d i d 
n o t make 
a 
s p e c i f i c 
f i n d i n g 
t h a t 
any o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s 
t o t h e 
r e q u i r e m e n t o f g i v i n g s e c u r i t y e x i s t e d , i t d i d n o t 
comply w i t h 
the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 6 5 ( c ) . 
T h i r d , t h e d e f e n d a n t s contend t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t d i d 
not comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 6 5 ( d ) ( 2 ) , A l a . 
R. 
C i v . 
P., because i t d i d n o t 
s e t f o r t h i t s r e a s o n s f o r i s s u i n g 
the i n j u n c t i o n and d i d 
n o t d e s c r i b e t h e a c t s t o be e n j o i n e d . 
R u l e 65(d)(2) 
p r o v i d e s , i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : 
"Every o r d e r g r a n t i n g an i n j u n c t i o n s h a l l s e t f o r t h 
the r e a s o n s f o r 
i t s i s s u a n c e ; 
s h a l l be s p e c i f i c i n 
16 
1120310; 1120368 
terms; s h a l l d e s c r i b e i n r e a s o n a b l e 
d e t a i l , and 
n o t 
by r e f e r e n c e t o 
t h e c o m p l a i n t o r o t h e r document, t h e 
a c t o r a c t s sought t o be r e s t r a i n e d 
" 
In t h i s case, i t 
i s c l e a r t h a t t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r 
does not comply w i t h R u l e 6 5 ( d ) ( 2 ) . 
The t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t 
s e t f o r t h any reasons f o r 
t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y -
i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r . 
See B u t l e r v. Roome, 907 So. 2d 432 ( A l a . 
2005). 
In f a c t , t h e o r d e r made no r e f e r e n c e t o whether K i n g 
M e t a l had d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n 
H o l i d a y 
I s l e , 
s u p r a , n e c e s s a r y t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . 
A l s o , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t d e s c r i b e t h e 
a c t 
o r a c t s sought 
to be r e s t r a i n e d . A t most, i t m e r e l y r e f e r e n c e d K i n g 
M e t a l ' s 
m o t i o n i n s u p p o r t o f t h e o r d e r , which i s 
e x p r e s s l y p r o h i b i t e d 
by 
R u l e 
6 5 ( 2 ) ( d ) . 
" P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 
6 5 [ ( d ) ( 2 ) ] , i t 
i s 
mandatory t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y - i n j u n c t i o n 
o r d e r g i v e reasons 
f o r 
the i s s u a n c e o f t h e i n j u n c t i o n , t h a t i t 
be s p e c i f i c i n i t s 
terms, and t h a t i t 
d e s c r i b e i n r e a s o n a b l e 
d e t a i l t h e a c t 
o r 
a c t s sought t o be r e s t r a i n e d . " Monte Sano R e s e a r c h Corp. v. 
K r a t o s 
Defense & Sec. S o l u t i o n s , I n c . , 
99 So. 3d 855, 863 
( A l a . 
2012). 
See a l s o D.M.C. E n t e r s . , I n c . 
v. Hope, 100 So. 
3d 1102, 
1108 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ( n o t i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
one-sentence 
o r d e r 
g r a n t i n g 
Hope's 
motion [ f o r 
17 
1120310; 1120368 
i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f ] 
does n o t c o n t a i n 
any o f t h e 
r e q u i r e d 
i n f o r m a t i o n " ) . 
Because t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d 
n o t s e t f o r t h i t s 
r e a s o n s f o r i s s u i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n and d i d n o t d e s c r i b e t h e 
a c t s t o be e n j o i n e d i n 
t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r , i t s o r d e r 
d i d n o t comply w i t h R u l e 
6 5 ( d ) ( 2 ) . 
C o n c l u s i o n 
For the a b o v e - s t a t e d r e a s o n s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
November 
28, 2012, 
o r d e r 
was 
a new 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n r a t h e r than a c l a r i f i c a t i o n or an enforcement o f 
the October 2, 2012, p r e l i m i n a r y - i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r . 
We 
a l s o 
c o n c l u d e 
t h a t t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
exceeded t h e scope o f 
i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n 
i n i s s u i n g t h e November 28, 2012, 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n because i t d i d 
n o t comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t 
f o r t h i n R u l e 65, A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P., when i t e n t e r e d t h e o r d e r .
6 
T h e r e f o r e , 
we r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s November 28, 2012, 
o r d e r and remand t h i s case w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
d i s s o l v e 
t h e p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n i t i s s u e d 
on 
6 I n 
t h i s 
r e g a r d , 
we 
note 
t h a t 
t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
was 
a p p a r e n t l y 
aware o f t h e f a c t t h a t i t 
had n o t c o m p l i e d 
w i t h 
R u l e 65 when i t i s s u e d t h e November 28, 2012, p r e l i m i n a r y -
i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r . 
D u r i n g t h e December 17, 2012, h e a r i n g on 
the motion t o d i s s o l v e t h e November 28, 2012, p r e l i m i n a r y -
i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r , the t r i a l c o u r t a d m i t t e d t h a t i t f r e q u e n t l y 
i s s u e s i n j u n c t i o n s " t h a t don't comply w i t h R u l e 65 because o f 
the immediacy and t h e need." 
18 
1120310; 1120368 
November 28, 2012. 
However, 
t h i s 
d e c i s i o n s h o u l d n o t be 
i n t e r p r e t e d as p r e c l u d i n g 
K i n g 
M e t a l , 
s h o u l d i t deem i t 
n e c e s s a r y , 
from 
a s k i n g t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t t o a g a i n 
i s s u e a 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n j u n c t i o n , p r o v i d e d 
t h a t any such i n j u n c t i o n 
c o m p l i e s w i t h R u l e 65, A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P. 
1120310 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
11203 
68 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
Moore, C.J., 
and S t u a r t and P a r k e r , J J . , c o n c u r . 
Shaw, J . , c o n c u r s i n 
p a r t and c o n c u r s i n 
t h e r e s u l t . 
19 
1120310; 1120368 
SHAW, J u s t i c e 
( c o n c u r r i n g 
i n p a r t 
and 
c o n c u r r i n g 
i n t h e 
r e s u l t ) . 
I concur i n t h e main o p i n i o n e x c e p t t h a t p a r t of t h e 
d i s c u s s i o n t h a t a d d r e s s e s t h e l a c k of c o m p l i a n c e w i t h 
R u l e 
6 5 ( d ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., as t o which I e x p r e s s no o p i n i o n . 
20