Opinion ID: 2556702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Defendant's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

Text: General Laws 1956 § 9-24-7 provides that the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is an appealable order. Iggy's Doughboys, Inc. v. Giroux, 729 A.2d 701, 705 (R.I.1999). However, because the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests within the sound discretion of the hearing justice, we review that decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Id. The defendant argues that the trial justice erred in denying his motion for a preliminary injunction against Gorham. The motion requested that Gorham be restrained and enjoined from interfering with [defendant] and/or from entering on defendant's real estate. The trial justice denied this motion because, inter alia, he did not believe the Superior Court had personal jurisdiction over Gorham. The defendant contends that by filing and agreeing to the consent judgment, Gorham became a party to the action, and subject to the court's jurisdiction. This argument is without merit. This Court repeatedly has held that a fundamental principle of procedural due process is that a court may not issue a judgment or order against a person in the absence of personal jurisdiction. In re Stephanie B., 826 A.2d 985, 993 (R.I.2003). In Guertin v. Guertin, 870 A.2d 1011, 1013 (R.I.2005), a father brought suit against his ex-wife to modify the existing custody agreement concerning their daughter. In response to the ex-wife's request, the trial justice restrained and enjoined the child's stepmotherwho was not a party to the suitfrom handling any of the child's prescription medication. Id. at 1016. On appeal, this Court vacated that order on the ground that the Family Court did not have personal jurisdiction over the stepmother. Id. at 1020. We held that mere presence in court or knowledge of the proceedings does not vest the trial court with jurisdiction over a person who is not a party to the action. Id. at 1020 n. 5. Rather, one who is named in the pleadings and has been properly served with process or who otherwise has entered an appearance is deemed a party. Id. at 1020. Moreover, [a]n appearance is `[a] coming into court as party to a suit, either in person or by attorney, whether as plaintiff or defendant.' Nisenzon v. Sadowski, 689 A.2d 1037, 1048 (R.I.1997) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 97 (6th ed.1990)). In the case at bar, the trial justice correctly concluded that the Superior Court lacked the requisite personal jurisdiction over Gorham. Despite his participation in the suit as counsel for intervenors, he was neither named as a party, nor did he enter an appearance on his own behalf. Mere presence in court while serving as an advocate for a client does not vest a trial court with personal jurisdiction over an attorney. Therefore, we affirm the trial justice's denial of defendant's motion for a preliminary injunction.