Opinion ID: 1194678
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Lack of Evidentiary Hearing

Text: While the district court erred in its application of the preliminary injunction factors and consideration of the Ohio action, it did not err by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff appears to concede this point, but argues, in the alternative, that to the extent that the district court's holding can be read to suggest that more factual findings were required, the district court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Pl. Br. at 44-49. We find that Plaintiff's description of the law on this point is correct. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which governs the issuance of preliminary injunctions, does not explicitly require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing before issuing an injunction, but it does direct that [n]o preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)(1). We have interpreted this requirement to impl[y] a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to oppose the application and to prepare for such opposition. County Sec. Agency v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 296 F.3d 477, 484 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Williams v. McKeithen, 939 F.2d 1100, 1105 (5th Cir.1991)). See also Carpenters' Dist. Council v. Cicci, 261 F.2d 5, 8 (6th Cir.1958) (Rule 65 contemplates that the issuance of a preliminary injunction shall be upon notice to the adverse party and after a hearing.  (emphasis added)). However, our Rule 65 jurisprudence indicates that a hearing is only required when there are disputed factual issues, and not when the issues are primarily questions of law. See Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 14 Fed.Appx. 636, 639 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished) (Rule 65 does not require the presentation of oral testimony . . . particularly . . . when the issues litigated are primarily questions of law.); Sentinel Trust Co. v. Namer, 172 F.3d 873 (6th Cir.1998) (unpublished table opinion) (interpreting prior precedent to require an evidentiary hearing when there is a disputed issue of fact and the documentary record is insufficient to resolve it); Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 357 F.2d 152, 153-54 (6th Cir.1966) (finding that, because there was a controversy over the facts, a hearing should have been held before issuing a preliminary injunction); Cicci, 261 F.2d at 8 (finding no hearing to be required if there is no dispute between the parties about the facts, but requiring a hearing if the allegations of a complaint are denied by a defendant). But see County Sec. Agency, 296 F.3d at 484 (finding a hearing to be required even though defendant did not contest the factual basis underlying the stipulated preliminary injunction but only challeng[ed] the legal basis for the issuance of any future injunction against him). This approach for determining when an evidentiary hearing is required finds its best support in our leading case on the subject, S.E.C. v. G. Weeks Sec., Inc., 678 F.2d 649, 651 (6th Cir.1982). In Weeks, the district court issued two preliminary injunctions, one prohibiting the defendant from further violating anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws, and one prohibiting further violations of the registration provisions of the securities laws. On appeal, we found that the district court had abused its discretion in issuing the anti-fraud injunction without first conducting an evidentiary hearing because that injunction turned on disputed factual questions. Id. at 651. However, we upheld the issuance of the registration injunction without a hearing because the district court had before it adequate documentary evidence upon which to base an informed, albeit preliminary, conclusion that the plaintiff would prevail on the merits. Id. We concluded that [w]here the resolution of the questions to be considered in issuing a preliminary injunction turns on legal rather than factual conclusions, the taking or oral testimony by both sides is not a prerequisite to a fair hearing. Id. Our rationale in Weeks is best summarized in the rule, initially announced by the Eleventh Circuit in McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, and which we now adopt as our own: [W]here facts are bitterly contested and credibility determinations must be made to decide whether injunctive relief should issue, an evidentiary hearing must be held. [However,] where material facts are not in dispute, or where facts in dispute are not material to the preliminary injunction sought, district courts generally need not hold an evidentiary hearing. 147 F.3d 1301, 1312-13 (11th Cir.1998). In the instant case, the district court properly found that no material facts were in dispute. See Certified, 2007 WL 1343682, at . Under these circumstances, the district court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. However, if questions of fact had been in dispute, an evidentiary hearing would have been required.