Opinion ID: 2065719
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mandatory Preliminary Injunction

Text: In her request for a preliminary injunction, King asserted that she would suffer irreparable harm because of the unique nature of the benefit she received through her participation in the activities of OES. She also argued that she had a clear right to the remedy she sought, the balance of the parties' interests weighed in favor of granting the injunction, and that the status quo would be preserved by granting the injunction. The trial justice properly articulated the onerous standard for granting a preliminary injunction that is mandatory in nature: Parties seeking such relief must establish first that there is a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying complaint; second, that irreparable harm will result if injunctive relief is not granted; third, that the balance of the equities in the public interest is served by injunctive relief; and, fourth, that the status quo between the parties will most likely be maintained by the injunctive relief sought.    `When an injunction mandatory in its nature is asked for, a stricter rule obtains than when an injunction that preserves the status quo is sought. Owing to the extraordinary character of the remedy, it should be granted on preliminary application only in cases of great urgency, and when the right of the complainant is very clear[.]' See Giacomini, 118 R.I. at 65, 372 A.2d at 67. The hearing justice concluded that King had met the strict standard for mandatory injunctive relief. In so doing, he cited the fact that King had a four-generation legacy with OES and had herself been a member for nearly four decades, that the suspension was devastating and disruptive to her, that she clearly had been denied the procedural safeguards provided by the OES constitution, that the indefinite suspension ultimately imposed on plaintiff was retaliatory in nature, and that the denial of her right to appeal left any further pursuit of the matter internally futile. However, even though the hearing justice's reasoning was well articulated and thoughtful, at no time did he find that there was great urgency justifying the relief sought. We will disturb a hearing justice's decision to grant a preliminary injunction only when he has abused his discretion. See Richmond Realty, Inc., 644 A.2d at 832. This Court often has held the granting of mandatory preliminary injunctive relief to be a troubling and vexatious issue, and we have no desire to loosen that standard here. See Pine v. Kalian, 723 A.2d 804, 805 (R.I.1998) (mem.) (`[W]hen an injunction mandatory in the nature is asked for, a stricter rule obtains. Owing to the extraordinary character of the remedy it should be granted on preliminary application only in cases of great urgency and when the right of the complainant is very clear.') (quoting Smart 50 R.I. at 415, 148 A. at 805); see also Giacomini 118 R.I. at 65, 372 A.2d at 67. Thus, it remains, that in the absence of a showing of great urgency, a mandatory preliminary injunction cannot be granted. See Giacomini, 118 R.I. at 65, 372 A.2d at 67. The hearing justice did not make an explicit finding of great urgency; nor is such a finding implicit in the reasoning of his decision. Furthermore, our thorough review of the record leads us to conclude that King did not meet that standard. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the hearing justice erred when he granted the mandatory preliminary injunction, and it must be vacated. We are further persuaded by the decisions of other courts that disfavor preliminary relief that is essentially identical to the ultimate relief sought, as is the case here. See Crowley v. Local No. 82, Furniture and Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen, and Packers, 679 F.2d 978, 995 (1st Cir.1982) (a preliminary injunction    shall not grant the ultimate relief sought); see also SW Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 646 F.Supp. 819, 823 (D.R.I. 1986) (Preliminary injunctions of a mandatory nature are particularly disfavored when their effect would be to grant the ultimate relief sought by the moving party.). It is precisely because of these concerns that the stricter rule, requiring a very clear right and great urgency, adheres to the determination of the propriety of a mandatory preliminary injunction. In the absence of these extraordinary circumstances, to grant the relief preliminarily runs the risk of deciding the merits of the request for final relief at a preliminary stage. [7]