Opinion ID: 1959644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Circuit Court erred in granting the permanent injunction.

Text: A fundamental question presented is whether Respondent produced evidence that Petitioner's conduct caused, or was likely to cause, it irreparable harm, the type of harm necessary to justify the court's issuance of injunctive relief. For the following reasons, we hold, on this record and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Respondent, that this threshold was not crossed, and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand with directions that it vacate the judgment of the Circuit Court.
Injunctive relief normally will not be granted unless the petitioner demonstrates that it will sustain substantial and irreparable injury as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park and Planning Comm'n v. Washington Nat'l Arena, 282 Md. 588, 615, 386 A.2d 1216, 1234 (1978) (citations omitted); Fort v. Groves, 29 Md. 188, 193-94 (1868). Such injury, however, need not be beyond all possibility of compensation in damages, nor need it be very great. Maryland-Nat'l, 282 Md. at 615, 386 A.2d at 1234 (quoting Hart v. Wagner, 184 Md. 40, 47-48, 40 A.2d 47, 51 (1944); Smith v. Shiebeck, 180 Md. 412, 422, 24 A.2d 795, 801 (1942)). Rather, irreparable injury is suffered whenever monetary damages are difficult to ascertain or are otherwise inadequate. Maryland-Nat'l, 282 Md. at 615, 386 A.2d at 1234 (quoting Glasco v. Hills, 558 F.2d 179, 181 (3d Cir.1977)); see also Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44, 52, 8 A. 901, 904 (1887) (An injury may be said to be irreparable when it cannot be measured by any known pecuniary standard.). The Coster court enunciated the background principles regarding the nature of irreparable injury in a similar manner: As ordinarily understood, an injury is irreparable, within the law of injunctions, where it is of such a character that a fair and reasonable redress may not be had in a court of law, so that to refuse the injunction would be a denial of justicein other words, where, from the nature of the act, or from the circumstances surrounding the person injured, or from the financial condition of the person committing it, it cannot be readily, adequately, and completely compensated for with money. Coster, 36 Md.App. at 526, 373 A.2d at 1290 (quoting 42 Am.Jur.2d, Injunctions, § 49). Moreover, mere allegations or arguments by a petitioner that it will suffer irreparable damage are not sufficient foundation upon which to base injunctive relief; facts must be adduced to prove that a petitioner's apprehensions are well-founded. Shiebeck, 180 Md. at 421, 24 A.2d at 801 (1942) (citations omitted); Mayor and Council of Salisbury v. Camden Sewer Co., 135 Md. 563, 573, 109 A. 333, 336 (1920) (citations omitted).
At trial in the present case, Love El, on behalf of Respondent, testified that while Petitioner was holding himself out as a trustee of the Temple, Petitioner was not soliciting any monies under the guise of that alleged trusteeship. Moreover, when asked whether Petitioner's conduct had caused any dissension within the Temple, Love El responded [n]one .... our organization is a national organization, with over 360 some temples around the country. This man is not even known by most of the people that's [sic] in our organization. Rather than demonstrating irreparable harm, such evidence supports the conclusion that Petitioner's conduct did not predict future irreparable harm. According to Love El's testimony, Respondent's greatest concern regarding Petitioner was that his conduct violated its religious code, and that the Temple requested injunctive relief because addressing Petitioner's conduct was costing [the Temple] time and money. Love-El's assertions invoked ecclesiastical principles which the lower courts chose properly not to entertain, for the courts, wisely we think, will not enter a `theological thicket.'  See Mt. Olive, 348 Md. at 309, 703 A.2d at 199 (quoting Maryland Virginia Eldership of Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, 249 Md. 650, 660, 241 A.2d 691, 697 (1968)). We conclude, therefore, that there is no evidence in this record to substantiate the Circuit Court's implicit (and required) finding of irreparable harm.