Opinion ID: 699542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard for Preliminary Relief

Text: 27 A party seeking injunctive relief ordinarily must show: (a) that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and (b) either (i) a likelihood of success on the merits or (ii) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant's favor. See, e.g., Polymer Technology Corp. v. Mimran, 37 F.3d 74, 77-78 (2d Cir.1994); Reuters Ltd. v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 903 F.2d 904, 907 (2d Cir.1990); Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H.P. Hood & Sons, Inc., 596 F.2d 70, 72 (1979) (per curiam). 28 However, we have required the movant to meet a higher standard where: (i) an injunction will alter, rather than maintain, the status quo, or (ii) an injunction will provide the movant with substantially all the relief sought and that relief cannot be undone even if the defendant prevails at a trial on the merits. We believe that portions of Judge McKenna's order meet both these criteria.
29 The typical preliminary injunction is prohibitory and generally seeks only to maintain the status quo pending a trial on the merits. See Abdul Wali v. Coughlin, 754 F.2d 1015, 1025 (2d Cir.1985). A mandatory injunction, in contrast, is said to alter the status quo by commanding some positive act. See id. As noted above, this distinction is important because we have held that a mandatory injunction should issue only upon a clear showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief requested, or where extreme or very serious damage will result from a denial of preliminary relief. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also SEC v. Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d 1028, 1039 (2d Cir.1990) (injunction going beyond preservation of status quo requires a more substantial showing of likelihood of success); Jacobson & Co. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 548 F.2d 438, 441 (2d Cir.1977). The clear or substantial showing requirement--the variation in language does not reflect a variation in meaning--thus alters the traditional formula by requiring that the movant demonstrate a greater likelihood of success. See Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d at 1039. 30 The distinction between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions is not without ambiguities or critics. Determining whether the status quo is to be maintained or upset has led to distinctions that are more semantic[ ] than substantive. Abdul Wali, 754 F.2d at 1025; see International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2561, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994) (noting that in borderline cases injunctive provisions containing essentially the same command can be phrased either in mandatory or prohibitory terms). An injunction that prohibits a party from refusing to permit some act may, as a practical matter, alter the status quo. In Abdul Wali, for instance, the court noted that although a group of prisoners sought to require prison officials to deliver to them a published report discussing prison conditions, the injunction issued was prohibitory in nature because it simply prevented prison officials from interfering with the delivery of documents sent to the prisoners by a third party. 754 F.2d at 1026. 31 Moreover, many mandatory injunctions can be stated in seemingly prohibitory terms. See, e.g., Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d at 1040 (imposing substantial showing of likelihood of success standard because [t]hough the order is prohibitory in form, rather than mandatory, it accomplishes significantly more than preservation of the status quo). 32 Confusion in breach of contract cases as to whether an injunction is mandatory or prohibitory may stem from the meaning of status quo. A plaintiff's view of the status quo is the situation that would prevail if its version of the contract were performed. A defendant's view of the status quo is its continued failure to perform as the plaintiff desires. To a breach of contract defendant, any injunction requiring performance may seem mandatory.
33 A heightened standard has also been applied where an injunction--whether or not mandatory--will provide the movant with substantially all the relief that is sought. Abdul Wali, 754 F.2d at 1026. See 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 2948, at 445-47 (1973); see also Abdul Wali, 754 F.2d at 1025-26. However, the terms all the relief to which the movant would be entitled or all the relief sought have also been the source of confusion because, read literally, they appear to describe any injunction where the final relief for the plaintiff would simply be a continuation of the preliminary relief. See, e.g., Johnson v. Kay, 860 F.2d 529, 540-41 (2d Cir.1988). However, [t]his application of the rule seems hard to justify ... [because] the fact that the plaintiff would get no additional relief if he prevailed at the trial on the merits should not deprive him of his remedy. Developments in the Law--Injunctions, 78 Harv.L.Rev. 994, 1058 (1965). 34 If the use of a heightened standard is to be justified, the term all the relief to which a plaintiff may be entitled must be supplemented by a further requirement that the effect of the order, once complied with, cannot be undone. A heightened standard can thus be justified when the issuance of an injunction will render a trial on the merits largely or partly meaningless, either because of temporal concerns, say, a case involving the live televising of an event scheduled for the day on which preliminary relief is granted, or because of the nature of the subject of the litigation, say, a case involving the disclosure of confidential information. The bottom line is that, if a preliminary injunction will make it difficult or impossible to render a meaningful remedy to a defendant who prevails on the merits at trial, then the plaintiff should have to meet the higher standard of substantial, or clear showing of, likelihood of success to obtain preliminary relief. Otherwise, there is no reason to impose a higher standard. See Abdul Wali, 754 F.2d at 1026 (delivery of a prison report to prisoners that would be immediately read would moot a trial on the merits).
35 We believe that TOR must meet the heightened standard, first, because one provision of the preliminary injunction is arguably mandatory, and second, because that provision provides relief that cannot be undone if Saban prevails on the merits at trial. The provision in question orders Saban to license a juvenile story book based on the Power Rangers to TOR. 36 Under the Agreement, Saban was not obligated to license juvenile story books to TOR beyond the initial six titles. Instead, it was required only to allow TOR a right of first refusal if Saban decided to license such works. The injunction arguably requires more than a right of first refusal; it requires Saban to license TOR to publish one book involving the Power Rangers. The district court considered this relief to be necessary because Saban has licensed others to publish children's books based on the Power Rangers without affording TOR a right of first refusal, and, the tastes of children being fleeting, TOR must be given a chance to publish now lest commercially effective relief be unavailable after a trial. Because the preliminary relief arguably alters the status quo by doing more than is required by the Agreement, it might be considered mandatory. 2 37 In any event, the injunction requires Saban to give a license that will continue to allow TOR to publish the one work in question even if Saban ultimately prevails. The injunction thus gives TOR rights that cannot be undone. Therefore, the heightened standard applies.