Opinion ID: 203878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of Review and Preliminary Injunction Law

Text: We review the grant of a motion for a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLC, 531 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir.2008). More specifically, we review findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. Id. We will set aside a district court's ruling as to preliminary injunctive relief if the court clearly erred in assessing the facts, misapprehended the applicable legal principles, or otherwise is shown to have abused its discretion, Wine and Spirits Retailers, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 418 F.3d 36, 46 (1st Cir.2005), bearing in mind that, in general, trial courts have wide discretion in making judgments regarding the appropriateness of such relief. Charlesbank Equity Fund II v. Blinds To Go, Inc., 370 F.3d 151, 158 (1st Cir.2004). An error of law is always an abuse of discretion. Id. A preliminary injunction is traditionally viewed as relief of an extraordinary nature and does not purport to be a disposition of the matter on its merits. United States v. School Dist. of Omaha, 367 F.Supp. 179, 193 (D.Neb.1973); see also Benson Hotel Corp. v. Woods, 168 F.2d 694, 696 (8th Cir.1948) (The application for [a preliminary] injunction does not involve a final determination on the merits; in fact, [its] purpose ... is not to determine any controverted right, but to prevent a threatened wrong or any further perpetration of injury ... [,] and thus to protect property or rights ... until the issues can be determined after a full hearing.). Accordingly, in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, the district court must consider the following factors: first, the likelihood that the party requesting the injunction will succeed on the merits; second, the potential for irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; third, the hardship to the nonmovant if enjoined compared to the hardship to the movant if injunctive relief is denied; and fourth, the effect of the court's ruling on the public interest. Water Keeper Alliance v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 271 F.3d 21, 30 (1st Cir.2001) (citing Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 1996)). A court granting a preliminary injunction must set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its issuance. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(2). We have vacated preliminary injunctions that fail to include such findings. See, e.g., TEC Eng'g Corp. v. Budget Molders Supply, Inc., 82 F.3d 542, 545 (1st Cir.1996) (vacating injunction for failure to comply with this requirement and noting that on remand the district court w[ould] have to apply the four-part preliminary injunction test and set forth the basis for its ruling on each prong). Furthermore, Rule 65(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that every injunction order: (A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detailand not by referring to the complaint or other document-the act or acts restrained or required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(1). [T]he federal courts have been very careful to give [Federal Rule 65(d)] full effect. [Its] requirements ... have been treated as mandatory, and even emergency conditions have not warranted a departure from them. 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2955 (2009). An order that fails to comply with the prerequisites of Rule 65(d) should be set aside on appeal. Id. Rule 65(a)(2) also provides a procedural mechanism for consolidating a preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2). However, the real hazards inherent in fully disposing of cases in such an expedited fashion-among them incomplete coverage of relevant issues and failure to present all relevant evidence, have led courts to demand indisputably clear notice to the parties before approving such consolidation. Caribbean Produce Exch., Inc. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 893 F.2d 3, 5 (1st Cir.1989) (reversing the final disposition of the case on the merits after preliminary injunction hearing because district court had failed to notify the parties of its intent to do so and therefore they had been operat[ing] on the assumption that only the preliminary injunction was at stake); see also 11A Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2950 (2009) ([O]rdering consolidation during the course of a preliminary injunction hearing is reversible error when little or no notice is given of this change and the effect is to deprive a party of the right to present his case on the merits.). When a trial court disposes of a case on the merits after a preliminary-injunction hearing without expressly ordering consolidation ... it is likely that one or more of the parties will not present their entire case at an unconsolidated preliminary-injunction hearing. Id. Therefore, it is ordinarily improper to decide a case solely on such a basis. As the Second Circuit wrote: The judge's legal conclusions, like his fact-findings, are subject to change after a full hearing and the opportunity for more mature deliberation. For a preliminary injunctionas indicated by the numerous more or less synonymous adjectives used to label itis, by its very nature, interlocutory, tentative, provisional, ad interim, impermanent, mutable, not fixed or final or conclusive, characterized by its as-for-the-time-beingness. It serves as an equitable policing measure to prevent the parties from harming one another during the litigation; to keep the parties, while the suit goes on, as far as possible in the respective positions they occupied when the suit began. Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738, 742 (2d Cir.1953) (Frank, J.) Consequently, it is inappropriate for the court, at or after a preliminary injunction hearing, to make findings of fact or conclusions of law that go beyond what is necessary to decide whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. 11A Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2950. [5]