- 1 -

Supreme Court

No. 2023-301-Appeal.

(PC 23-1985)

Carol Scalzo :

v. :

Victoria Mendrinos. :

O R D E R

The defendant, Victoria Mendrinos, appeals from an order of the Superior 

Court granting preliminary injunctive relief to the plaintiff, Carol Scalzo, which, in 

conjunction with a grant of equivalent relief for the defendant, prohibited all contact 

between the parties. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order 

directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal 

should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral 

submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown 

and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the 

reasons set forth herein, we vacate the order of the Superior Court.

The Superior Court heard plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief 

against defendant on May 22, 2023.1 Both parties appeared without counsel. At the 

1 At the time of the hearing, the parties lived on the same floor of an apartment 

building in Bristol, Rhode Island. At oral argument, defendant’s counsel 

represented, and plaintiff confirmed, that defendant had since moved.
- 2 -

time, plaintiff was subject to a no-contact order with defendant that, according to 

plaintiff, she had “been diligently respecting.” She argued, however, that a separate 

order was necessary to prevent defendant from “trying to antagonize [her] and 

instigate [her] into some kind of confrontation.” The plaintiff alleged that defendant 

had called the police on her without cause and, on several occasions, had videotaped 

her in an apparent effort “to catch [her] in some kind of criminal act,” which had 

“become distressful.”

The trial justice then asked to hear from defendant. The defendant managed 

to utter only a few sentences, however, before the trial justice announced that he 

would grant plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. He then determined that 

the preliminary injunction would be “[m]utual,” set to expire one year after the date 

of the hearing, on May 22, 2024. The order entered on May 22, 2023, and defendant 

filed a notice of appeal that same day.

Aside from noting that his decision would “end it,” the trial justice did not 

articulate his rationale for granting plaintiff’s motion, let alone for granting a mutual 

injunction. “In ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, ‘we do not require 

trial justices to set forth comprehensive findings of fact.’” Riccio v. Theiss, 305 A.3d 

1267, 1270 (R.I. 2024) (mem.) (brackets omitted) (quoting United Parcel Service, 

Inc. v. Griffiths, 297 A.3d 502, 503 (R.I. 2023) (mem.)). Because “injunctive relief 

is an extraordinary remedy,” however, “a trial justice must, at a minimum, articulate 
- 3 -

a coherent, unambiguous basis of support for the four [preliminary injunction] 

factors.” Id. (quoting United Parcel Service, Inc., 297 A.3d at 503). Specifically, 

the trial justice must consider and resolve

“whether the moving party (1) has a reasonable likelihood 

of success on the merits, (2) will suffer irreparable harm 

without the requested injunctive relief, (3) has the balance 

of the equities, including the possible hardships to each 

party and to the public interest, tip in its favor, and (4) has 

shown that the issuance of a preliminary injunction will 

preserve the status quo.” Id. at 1269-70 (quoting 

Gianfrancesco v. A.R. Bilodeau, Inc., 112 A.3d 703, 708 

(R.I. 2015)).

We review for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1269.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial justice abused his discretion 

because he did not consider these factors before granting the plaintiff’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction. She also argues that the trial justice erred by denying her the 

opportunity to testify meaningfully in her defense and to make a closing statement. 

Because we agree with the defendant’s first argument, we need not consider the 

latter. We pause to note, however, that pro se litigants, like those represented by 

counsel, are entitled to a fair opportunity to be heard before their cases are decided.

See Art. VI, Rule 2.6(A) of the Supreme Court Code of Judicial Conduct (“A judge 

shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s 

lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.”) (asterisks omitted).
- 4 -

For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the order of the Superior Court. The 

record shall be returned to the Superior Court.

Entered as an Order of this Court this day of May, 2024.

By Order,

____________________________ 

Clerk

Justice Lynch Prata did not participate.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE

Licht Judicial Complex

250 Benefit Street

Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case Carol Scalzo v. Victoria Mendrinos.

Case Number No. 2023-301-Appeal.

(PC 23-1985)

Date Order Filed May 14, 2024

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal Providence County Superior Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court Associate Justice R. David Cruise

Attorney(s) on Appeal

For Plaintiff: 

Carol Scalzo, pro se

For Defendant:

Brett Vincent Beaubien, Esq.