Opinion ID: 868777
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preliminary Injunction Procedure

Text: First, we find that the District Court’s failure to hold an evidentiary hearing is not grounds for reversal. Ordinarily, Rule 65 is interpreted to require that the party opposing the injunction, not the party seeking the injunction, be given notice and an opportunity for a hearing. See, e.g., SEC v. G. Weeks Secur., Inc., 678 F.2d 649, 651 (6th Cir. 1982); Detroit & T.S.L.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen, 357 F.2d 152, 154 (6th Cir. 1966). NVI and Torchia were the parties seeking, not opposing, the injunction. We also find that the District Court did not err in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing because NVI and Torchia had the opportunity to proffer evidence in their opposition to USI’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, but instead, only attached their complaint and the TRO order from the Cherokee Superior Court in Georgia. We also hold that the District Court did not fail to issue findings of fact. In granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction, a court must state findings of facts and conclusions of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1)-(2). The District Court clearly articulated findings of facts that it made from the testimony of NVI, Torchia, and USI; the court No. 12-2262 Nat’l Viatical Inc., et al. v. Universal Page 7 Settlements Int’l, Inc. documents from the magistrate judge’s court recording the settlement agreement; the magistrate judge’s notes; orders from the CCAA court; and other documents.