Opinion ID: 1644993
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the chancery court erred in dissolving the temporary restraining order and in denying a-1's motion for permanent injunction.

Text: ¶ 13. A temporary restraining order may be issued where immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before such time as a hearing on the matter can be held. Miss. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). In today's case, a TRO was issued by the chancery court to A-1, and then extended on two separate occasions by agreement of the parties. Upon motion by the City to dissolve the TRO, the chancery court heard arguments from both parties on April 14, 2009. The Chancery Court, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, found there was no longer a need to maintain the TRO. At the time the TRO was issued and extended, no decision had been made by the Jackson Historic Preservation Commission as to the City's request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish structures on the 1000 North Mill Street property, which was located within a historic district. But at the time of the hearing on the City's motion to dissolve the TRO, the Historic Preservation Commission had issued a decision which denied the City's request. The chancery court's findings, in pertinent part, were as follows: [Due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction], this Court cannot hear any appeal of the City Council's orders, and/or damage suits, and since the City of Jackson never appealed the Jackson Historic Preservation Commission order denying the City of Jackson's right to demolish A-1's property this Court finds there is no need for this Court to continue to maintain its temporary restraining order. ¶ 14. Thus, the chancellor found that, because the City could not proceed against the property without a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Jackson Historic Preservation Commission, and since the City never had appealed the denial of its request for a certificate, the purposes of the TRO had been served and the issues before the chancery court resolved. Accordingly, the chancery court granted the City's Motion to Dissolve and denied A-1's Motion for Permanent Injunction. ¶ 15. While A-1 conceded in its brief that the City never had actually damaged any of its structures, nor had the City taken any action since the 2007 ruling by the Jackson Historic Preservation Commission, A-1 maintains that the chancellor erred in dissolving the TRO due to the threat of future harm. Before the chancery court, A-1 argued that, as late as March 2009, Mayor Melton had issued threats through local media vowing to demolish the property. A-1's brief states: There is simply no need for A-1 to have to spend time and money defending new proceedings by the City of Jackson to demolish the A-1 Property, and there is no reason to believe that the City of Jackson won't initiate such proceedings in the future. ¶ 16. The City counters that A-1 offered no proof at the hearing on the Motion to Dissolve other than unsupported, conclusory allegations that a threat to the property continued to exist. The City avers that, in making his decision, the chancellor had before him documents chronicling the procedural history of the case and its resolution. The City argued before the chancellor that, because the city council had failed to timely appeal the decision of the Jackson Historic Preservation Commission, the City had no authority to move forward with any previous demolition plans. Currently, the City claims to have no such plans, as evidenced by and through the affidavit of then-Special Assistant City Attorney Pieter Teeuwissen of Jackson, stating there is no action pending regarding the 1000 North Mill Street property. ¶ 17. Because there was no longer an immediate threat of injury, as contemplated by Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), there was no longer a need for the TRO or an injunction to remain in effect. A-1 did not present any proof of immediate, imminent threat of harm to its property, but rather made vague allegations that the City could in the future renew its efforts to destroy structures on the 1000 North Mill Street site. Accordingly, we find that the chancellor did not err in dissolving the TRO upon motion by the City. ¶ 18. As to the chancellor's denial of A-1's Motion for Permanent Injunction and Amended Motion for Permanent Injunction, we likewise decline to find an abuse of discretion. Under traditional rules of equitable relief, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing the need for injunctive relief. Moore v. Sanders, 558 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Miss.1990) (citing Sierra Club v. Bergland, 451 F.Supp. 120 (N.D.Miss. 1978)). Inadequacy of a remedy at law is the basis upon which the power of injunction is exercised. Id. An application for a preliminary injunction is a matter committed to the chancery court's sound discretion. City of Durant v. Humphreys County Mem'l Hosp./Extended Care Facility, 587 So.2d 244, 250 (Miss.1991). ¶ 19. In issuing a preliminary injunction, a chancellor must balance the following factors: (1) There exists a substantial likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits; (2) The injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) Threatened injury to the plaintiffs outweighs the harm an injunction might do to the defendants; and (4) Entry of a preliminary injunction is consistent with the public interest. Id. ¶ 20. Likewise, for a permanent injunction to issue, the above-mentioned factors are weighed in light of all proffered evidence and following a full hearing on the merits of the claim. 5 Jeffrey Jackson & Mary Miller, Mississippi Practice Series: Encyclopedia of Mississippi Law § 38:6 (2001). Just as with a preliminary injunction, for a permanent injunction to be granted, a party must show an imminent threat of irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Ruff v. Estate of Ruff, 989 So.2d 366, 369-370 (Miss.2008) (quoting Punzo v. Jackson County, 861 So.2d 340, 347 (Miss.2003); Reynolds v. Amerada Hess Corp., 778 So.2d 759, 765 (Miss.2000)). ¶ 21. In Moore , the plaintiff was an elected member of the Leflore County Board of Supervisors who represented District 2. Upon receiving a complaint that Moore was no longer a resident of District 2, the Board of Supervisors conducted a full evidentiary hearing which culminated in a ruling that Moore was no longer eligible for his office by virtue of having changed his residency. Moore, 558 So.2d at 1383-84. The chancery court had denied Moore's application for injunctive relief, which ruling this Court affirmed on the basis that Moore had an adequate remedy at law. Id. at 1385. This Court noted that Mississippi Code Section 11-51-75 [2] provided a right of appeal to circuit court for any person aggrieved by a decision of municipal authorities or boards of supervisorsan adequate remedy at law, which Moore in fact pursued. Id. ¶ 22. In today's case, the chancellor denied injunctive relief to A-1 on precisely the same basis. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the trial court explicitly stated that, under Section 11-51-75, the circuit court had exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals of actions or rulings of the Jackson City Council. Thus, A-1 had an adequate remedy at law, and injunctive relief could not be granted. See Moore, 558 So.2d at 1385. ¶ 23. A-1 argues that the chancellor's ruling was erroneous because, since the City Council had acted without authority of law, its June 19, 2007, decision was an absolute nullity, thus not appealable to circuit court. In support of this argument, A-1 points to language in Hood v. Perry County, 821 So.2d 900 (Miss.Ct.App.2002) (citing Biloxi-Pascagoula Real Estate Bd. v. Miss. Reg'l Hous. Auth. No. VIII, 231 Miss. 89, 98-99, 94 So.2d 793, 796-97 (1957)), which states: Proceeding in opposition to a lawful decision of the Board outside of the exclusive remedies available constitutes a collateral attack that will not be maintained. A-1 highlights the words lawful decision and argues that, since the City's decision was unlawful, it was not appealable to circuit court. However, A-1 fails to cite the following language from Hood: There is no merit in the Hoods' assertion that the Board's actions do not constitute a judgment or decision that may be appealed to the circuit court. `We are of the opinion that any act of a county or municipality leaving a party aggrieved is appealable under § 11-51-75' . . . . Id. at 902. ¶ 24. Moreover, A-1 failed to make this argument before the trial court. Accordingly, A-1 is procedurally barred from making this argument on appeal. See Brown v. Miss. Dept. of Employment Sec., 29 So.3d 766, 771 (Miss.2010) (This Court repeatedly has held that an issue not raised before the lower court is deemed waived and is procedurally barred.). ¶ 25. As there was no abuse of discretion by the chancellor in denying A-1's underlying claim for equitable relief, it follows that the chancery court was unable to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the tort claims. The chancellor found no independent basis for equity jurisdiction; thus, we affirm the chancellor's dismissal of A-1's claims for damages. See Issaquena Warren Counties Land Co., LLC v. Warren County, 996 So.2d 747, 751 (Miss.2008) (recognizing the chancery courts' authority to hear law claims where there exists an independent basis for equity jurisdiction); see also Tillotson v. Anders, 551 So.2d 212, 213 (Miss.1989); Tideway Oil Programs, Inc. v. Serio, 431 So.2d 454, 464 (Miss. 1983); Burnett v. Bass, 152 Miss. 517, 521, 120 So. 456 (1929).