Opinion ID: 1972206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Temporary Injunction.

Text: A temporary injunction is a preventive remedy to maintain the status quo of the parties prior to final judgment and to protect the subject of the litigation. Kleman v. Charles City Police Dep't, 373 N.W.2d 90, 95 (Iowa 1985). The issuance or refusal of a temporary injunction rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial court, dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case. Kent Prods. v. Hoegh, 245 Iowa 205, 211, 61 N.W.2d 711, 714 (1953). Our review, therefore, is for an abuse of discretion. Kleman, 373 N.W.2d at 96. One requirement for the issuance of a temporary injunction is a showing of the likelihood or probability of success on the merits of the underlying claim. See Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co., 621 N.W.2d 178, 181 (Iowa 2001); Kent Prods., 245 Iowa at 212, 61 N.W.2d at 715. Here, the plaintiff's underlying claim is an equitable action for permanent injunctive relief. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1501 (An injunction may be obtained as an independent remedy by an action in equity, or as an auxiliary remedy in any action.). Therefore, in considering the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction, the district court was required to assess the likelihood that the plaintiff would be successful in showing entitlement to a permanent injunction. As we have noted above, the plaintiff's request for permanent injunctive relief rested on the alleged illegality of the city's action in declaring the plaintiff's property a public nuisance: specifically, the city did not provide procedural due process in making this factual determination. See generally Douglass v. Iowa City, 218 N.W.2d 908, 913 (Iowa 1974) (stating court will generally not permanently restrain the action of a municipality unless the action complained of is illegal, fraudulent, or clearly oppressive). The district court not only concluded this claim was doubtful, the court actually addressed the merits of the plaintiff's due process argument and held the city had not acted illegally. We think the district court properly refused to issue a temporary injunction, but not for the reason cited by the district court. We choose to rest our affirmance on an alternate argument made by the city in its resistance to the plaintiff's motion for temporary injunction, an argument the district court found unnecessary to address: Lewis is not entitled to injunctive relief because it had an adequate remedy at law. Permanent injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that is granted only when there is no other way to avoid irreparable harm to the plaintiff. See Planned Parenthood of Mid-Iowa v. Maki, 478 N.W.2d 637, 639 (Iowa 1991); Myers v. Caple, 258 N.W.2d 301, 304-05 (Iowa 1977). Accordingly, if a plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, injunctive relief as an independent remedy is not available. See Opat v. Ludeking, 666 N.W.2d 597, 603 (Iowa 2003); Sergeant Bluff-Luton Sch. Dist. v. City of Sioux City, 562 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1997). For example, in the Sergeant Bluff-Luton case, we held the plaintiff could have challenged the city's decision in a certiorari action, and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to permanent injunctive relief. 562 N.W.2d at 156. Certiorari is an action at law to test the legality of an action taken by a court or tribunal. Id.; accord Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401. When a tribunal acts in a quasi-judicial manner, certiorari is a proper vehicle to challenge the tribunal's action. Petersen v. Harrison County Bd. of Supervisors, 580 N.W.2d 790, 793 (Iowa 1998); Buechele v. Ray, 219 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Iowa 1974). Thus, we must decide whether the city's nuisance determination was a quasi-judicial decision. The city, in addressing the due-process issue, contends that its designation of the property as a public nuisance was a legislative determination. [1] To support its argument, the city relies on condemnation cases that hold the determination of the necessity for taking property for public use is ordinarily a legislative and not a judicial function. Porter v. Bd. of Supervisors, 238 Iowa 1399, 1403, 28 N.W.2d 841, 843 (1947); accord Mann v. City of Marshalltown, 265 N.W.2d 307, 313 (Iowa 1978). But the council's factual determination that a public nuisance exists must be distinguished from its decision to authorize its employees to pursue condemnation based on this fact. Although the condemnation decision is a legislative function, the declaration of a nuisance is not. A tribunal exercises a quasi-judicial function when `the questioned act involves a proceeding in which notice and opportunity to be heard are required' or when a `determination of rights of parties is made which requires the exercise of discretion in finding facts and applying the law' to those facts. Waddell v. Brooke, 684 N.W.2d 185, 191 (Iowa 2004) (citation omitted). It is well established that a city seeking to abate a public nuisance under nonemergency circumstances must give the property owner notice and the opportunity to be heard. See, e.g., Hancock v. City Council, 392 N.W.2d 472, 475 (Iowa 1986); Walker v. Johnson County, 209 N.W.2d 137, 140 (Iowa 1973); Cole v. Kegler, 64 Iowa 59, 61-62, 19 N.W. 843, 844 (1884); accord 7A The Law of Municipal Corporations § 24.561, at 183 (3d ed. 1998 rev. vol.) (stating notice to the owner, a hearing, and an opportunity for the owner to abate the nuisance constitute due process of law). In addition, the determination of whether a public nuisance exists is driven by the particular facts of the case before the tribunal. Therefore, the city's action in declaring the property a public nuisance was a quasi-judicial function. See Waddell, 684 N.W.2d at 191 (stating hearing and notice requirements made board's decision a quasi-judicial function); Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Dallas County, 675 N.W.2d 544, 553 (Iowa 2004) (holding board of adjustment was quasi-judicial where its function was essentially fact-finding). As such, it could be challenged in a certiorari action. See Hancock, 392 N.W.2d at 479-80. Significantly, Lewis's request for permanent injunctive relief rests solely on alleged illegalities in the city's quasi-judicial decision that a public nuisance exists, not on the city's legislative decision authorizing condemnation to abate the nuisance. Cf. Sergeant Bluff-Luton Sch. Dist. v. City of Sioux City, 605 N.W.2d 294, 297-98 (Iowa 2000) (identifying the precise action claimed to be illegal in determining whether certiorari action was filed in a timely manner). Therefore, cases allowing an independent suit to enjoin a condemnation proceeding on the basis that the condemning authority's legislative decision to condemn was illegal are not applicable. See, e.g., Mann, 265 N.W.2d at 313. We hold Lewis had an adequate legal remedy for the city's alleged failure to accord due process: a certiorari action to determine whether the city council's declaration of a public nuisance was procedurally flawed. In that action, Lewis could have sought a temporary injunction as an auxiliary remedy to preserve the status quo pending the court's resolution of the primary claim of illegality in the public-nuisance determination. That is exactly the procedure followed by the property owners in Hancock. In that case, a city council adopted a resolution declaring the plaintiffs' property a public nuisance and ordering its demolition. Hancock, 392 N.W.2d at 473. The plaintiffs claimed the procedure followed by the city in adopting the resolution violated their due process rights. Id. They challenged the city's decision in a certiorari action in which they sought an injunction against any further action by the city as an auxiliary remedy. Id. The same remedy was available to the plaintiff here. Even though the future action sought to be enjoined in the present case was the city's condemnation of the property rather than enforcement of a demolition order, as in Hancock, the challenged city action is identical: the failure to accord due process in making a factual determination that the property in question constituted a public nuisance. The legality of this decision could have been challenged in a certiorari action had one been filed within thirty days of the city council's decision. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1402(3). The plaintiff cannot forego this remedy and later obtain the extraordinary relief of a permanent injunction. Because the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law, it is unlikely that it would be entitled to permanent injunctive relief. Accordingly, it has failed to establish a prerequisite for a temporary injunction: the likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying temporary injunctive relief. AFFIRMED.