Opinion ID: 2383493
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: final injunction

Text: On August 29, 1990, exactly three weeks after Ficker appealed the circuit court's denial of a preliminary injunction, this Court issued a permanent injunction and directed the circuit court to enter a judgment ... requiring that the ... petitions be filed and verified.... This final injunction was issued before appellate briefs were prepared and even before the record was transmitted from the circuit court. I believe that the action taken by this Court violated basic principles of procedural law and fundamental fairness. In Hammond v. Schappi Bus Line, 275 U.S. 164, 48 S.Ct. 66, 72 L.Ed. 218 (1927), the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a circuit court for granting a final injunction after an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court stated: The appeal was from the interlocutory decree denying the preliminary injunction.... The case was not yet ripe for final disposition by the Court of Appeals.... Findings and rulings if now made on the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing on the application for the temporary injunction, might be rendered of no avail by the presentation of other or additional evidence when the case comes on for final hearing. 275 U.S. at 172, 48 S.Ct. at 69, 72 L.Ed. at 221. Before granting a permanent injunction, we had an obligation to give Denny the reasonable opportunity he requested to prepare his defense and secure the evidence that at least 2,500 signers really did wish to withdraw as well as to obtain 2,500 formal written withdrawals if the Court believed that was necessary. We must keep in mind that Denny and FIT were convinced that, given even minimal time to prepare for trial, they could prove that the great majority of the 12,500 signatures, certainly well over 2,500 signers, did not want the petition to be filed and wished to withdraw their signatures. Denny was entitled to an opportunity to prove his case. Sometime during the week between Ficker's initial filing and the hearing on the preliminary injunction, Denny was served with notice of the injunction. With an intervening weekend, even assuming it was served the day after the suit was filed, this left Denny less than five working days to draft his affidavit and answer as well as prepare for the hearing. It certainly did not allow him time to attempt to secure written withdrawals, or even try to further survey the 12,500 signers of their petition. Denny believed that he would be given an opportunity, prior to the issuance of any permanent injunction, to prepare and prove his case. After Denny prevailed in the circuit court there was neither the time nor the need to secure formal withdrawals. Two days after Ficker's appeal, the Court of Special Appeals denied Ficker's request for injunction pending appeal, and three days later the filing deadline passed. When this Court the following week issued its injunction pending appeal, Denny had not even had time to file an answer to Ficker's motion for injunction pending appeal. After that injunction was issued, Denny only had a week to prepare for the hearing before us. Denny's attorney indicated that, because all of the sponsoring organizations surveyed unanimously withdrew their support and all of the workers contacted unanimously withdrew their support, and because Denny and FIT received no dissenting comments after their publicized decision not to file the petition, they reasonably believed almost none of the 12,500 signers still wanted the petition filed. They publicized the decision not to file the petition and received no objection from the signers. Consequently, they saw no reason, until the Ficker injunction was filed, to expend the time and effort to secure formal signed withdrawals. They had no time to do so after suit was filed. Before a permanent injunction could be granted, Denny was entitled to an opportunity to prove his defense. He implored this Court for just a couple of weeks and proffered that he should be able to easily secure thousands of withdrawals formally signed. There may be situations where sudden emergencies require this Court to act without giving the parties anything more than minimal opportunity to prepare their case. We are not, in the instant case, faced with one of these situations. The filing deadline did not require immediate action  it passed prior to this Court's taking any action. There could be no prejudice to anyone by giving Denny the couple of weeks he needed to gather proof that over 2,500 signers wished to withdraw. Denny's attorney pointed out that there could be no prejudice in affording him this opportunity prior to any decision whether to issue a permanent injunction. The ballots for the November election could not be printed until after the September 11, 1990 primary results were tabulated and certified. There could be no certification of candidates to the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors of Elections until Monday, October 12, 1990. See Art. 33, § 5-3(b). That would allow well over a month in which to set and hold a hearing on whether to issue a final injunction. Fundamental fairness required that Denny should have been given an opportunity to prepare and present his defense. Maryland Rule BB70 states in part: c. Interlocutory Injunction. `Interlocutory injunction' means an injunction granted after an adversary hearing on the propriety thereof, but before a determination of the merits of the action. d. Final Injunction. `Final injunction' means an injunction final or permanent in its nature granted after a determination of the merits of the action. (Emphasis added). In NCAA v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 301 Md. 574, 483 A.2d 1272 (1984), this Court pointed out that [t]he difference ... between an interlocutory injunction and a permanent one is whether there has been a determination on the merits of the claim. Id. at 580, 483 A.2d at 1275. In the instant case, the lower court only heard the request for an interlocutory injunction. This Court was not requested to issue a permanent injunction, but only an interlocutory injunction pending appeal. There was never any permanent injunction hearing or determination on the merits in the circuit court and no chance for Denny to collect and present evidence that over 2,500 signers wished to withdraw. This Court should not have issued a permanent injunction without giving Denny and FIT a reasonable opportunity to gather evidence and have a full hearing on the merits. NCAA v. Johns Hopkins, supra.