Opinion ID: 2633165
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The issues whether Friends was faced with irreparable harm and whether the city was adequately protected are moot.

Text: Although the city argues that the superior court did not make adequate findings that Friends was faced with irreparable harm, [14] it does not contend that Friends was not faced with irreparable harm. If we were reviewing the issuance of a preliminary injunction in a pending case, and concluded that the findings were inadequate, we would remand to the superior court for additional findings. [15] But remanding for additional findings in this case would be a needless exercise, given that the ultimate issue in this attorney's fees appeal is whether Friends was the prevailing party. The dispute that resulted in the injunction in this case is moot. Because the city does not argue that Friends was not faced with irreparable harm, we decline to consider whether the superior court abused its discretion in finding the threat of irreparable harm here. The superior court also found that [t]he security posted by [Friends] under the circumstances is sufficient to protect the city. The city argues that it was not adequately protected and that the superior court's finding was clearly erroneous. When a party requesting a preliminary injunction has shown probable success on the merits, a preliminary injunction may be issued even if the injury from the preliminary injunction may not be adequately indemnified by a bond. [16] The superior court found that Friends had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Because the court thought it was more likely than not that Friends would prevail on the merits of its claim, we interpret the court's finding of substantial likelihood of success on the merits as a finding of probable success on the merits. [17] If the superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Friends had demonstrated probable success on the merits, any possible error in its finding that the city was adequately protected is harmless. We therefore turn to whether Friends demonstrated probable success on the merits.