Opinion ID: 699542
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mandatory Injunctions

Text: 29 The typical preliminary injunction is prohibitory and generally seeks only to maintain the status quo pending a trial on the merits. See Abdul Wali v. Coughlin, 754 F.2d 1015, 1025 (2d Cir.1985). A mandatory injunction, in contrast, is said to alter the status quo by commanding some positive act. See id. As noted above, this distinction is important because we have held that a mandatory injunction should issue only upon a clear showing that the moving party is entitled to the relief requested, or where extreme or very serious damage will result from a denial of preliminary relief. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also SEC v. Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d 1028, 1039 (2d Cir.1990) (injunction going beyond preservation of status quo requires a more substantial showing of likelihood of success); Jacobson & Co. v. Armstrong Cork Co., 548 F.2d 438, 441 (2d Cir.1977). The clear or substantial showing requirement--the variation in language does not reflect a variation in meaning--thus alters the traditional formula by requiring that the movant demonstrate a greater likelihood of success. See Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d at 1039. 30 The distinction between mandatory and prohibitory injunctions is not without ambiguities or critics. Determining whether the status quo is to be maintained or upset has led to distinctions that are more semantic[ ] than substantive. Abdul Wali, 754 F.2d at 1025; see International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 2561, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994) (noting that in borderline cases injunctive provisions containing essentially the same command can be phrased either in mandatory or prohibitory terms). An injunction that prohibits a party from refusing to permit some act may, as a practical matter, alter the status quo. In Abdul Wali, for instance, the court noted that although a group of prisoners sought to require prison officials to deliver to them a published report discussing prison conditions, the injunction issued was prohibitory in nature because it simply prevented prison officials from interfering with the delivery of documents sent to the prisoners by a third party. 754 F.2d at 1026. 31 Moreover, many mandatory injunctions can be stated in seemingly prohibitory terms. See, e.g., Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d at 1040 (imposing substantial showing of likelihood of success standard because [t]hough the order is prohibitory in form, rather than mandatory, it accomplishes significantly more than preservation of the status quo). 32 Confusion in breach of contract cases as to whether an injunction is mandatory or prohibitory may stem from the meaning of status quo. A plaintiff's view of the status quo is the situation that would prevail if its version of the contract were performed. A defendant's view of the status quo is its continued failure to perform as the plaintiff desires. To a breach of contract defendant, any injunction requiring performance may seem mandatory.