Court Opinion

ID: 9572390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:41:19.308832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:45.712261
License: Public Domain

NELSON, Judge,
dissenting:
I believe that appellant did everything required by the statutes of Arizona and rules of court to preserve the substantive issues he brought here for review and must, therefore, respectfully dissent.
While I agree with the majority as to most of its-analysis of the applicable rules and statutes, supra, in my view its reliance upon Rule 52(b) and Rule 59 as available means to obtain relief from the granting of a preliminary injunction, is misplaced.
Both Rule 52(b) and Rule 59 relief is sought by a motion made 15 days after “entry of judgment”. In this case there was no “entry of judgment” in any sense of that phrase. Perhaps in cases where only injunctive relief is sought, or such relief is the primary purpose of the lawsuit, these rules would arguably be applicable. Where, however, the preliminary injunction was merely ancillary to the primary action, such as it was in this case, these rules—in my opinion, at least—have no applicability. While Rule 60(c) is broader and might more easily be read to cover efforts at relief from a preliminary injunction, I believe this rule also envisions more finality in the proceedings than we are here faced with. No cases are cited by the majority which make these rules applicable to provisional remedies such as the one at issue in this case, nor have I discovered any.
After the granting of the preliminary injunction, counsel believed, based upon the facts as he saw them, that his remedy by appeal, clearly available pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101 F(2), was neither “speedy or adequate”. He therefore sought special action relief in the Arizona Supreme Court, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, 17A A.R.S. By a vote of 3 to 2, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction.
Counsel then proceeded to follow what appeared to him to be the clear dictates of Rules 65(b) and 65(c), supra. He filed a verified answer and a motion to dissolve the injunction. The motion was denied and he appealed.
The essence of the opinion of the majority is that such a course of action, if allowed to bring before this court all of the matters raised at the hearing upon the preliminary injunction, would make such an injunction appealable for an unlimited amount of time, and they therefore read into Rule 65(c) a *421requirement for “changed circumstances” or at least something new. Rule 65(b) and (c) simply do not say that. They may be anachronistic in light of the provisions for a hearing and for a temporary restraining order, but it is not up to this Court to rewrite those rules by decision. If interpretation or logic is required, it seems much more logical to me to interpret the rule to require the filing of a verified answer, which cannot be put off for an “unlimited time”, and then a motion to dissolve, also within a reasonable time, since it too is closely tied to the answer. If the time frame in this case is considered to be typical, it involved only a short period of time, the verified answer being filed almost immediately after the Arizona Supreme Court declined jurisdiction in the special action, and the motion to dissolve being filed some 23 days later. The notice of appeal was filed the same day the motion to dissolve was denied by written order.
Counsel did exactly what the rules of court said he should do to bring the entire matter once again before the trial court: he filed a verified waiver and a motion to dissolve. The rules clearly state that this brings all of the material allegations of the complaint before the trial court once again. I would reach and decide the questions presented by the appellant as they relate to the granting of the preliminary injunction in the first instance.