Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Maine

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending final judgment.” (See Everett J. Prescott, Inc. v. Ross (2005) 383 F.Supp.2d 180, 192; Job v. Sounier, Civil Action CV-23-125, at *1 (Me. Super. Apr. 21, 2023).)

“One requirement for the issuance of a temporary injunction is a showing of the likelihood or probability of success on the merits of the underlying claim." (See Lewis Invs., Inc. v. City of Iowa City (2005) 703 N.W.2d 180, 184; Shelton v. State (2018) 919 N.W.2d 635.)

Rules for Filing a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Rule 65 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure governs preliminary injunctions.

“No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party. The application for preliminary injunction may be included in the complaint or may be made by motion.” (See Me. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).)

“Before or after the commencement of the hearing of an application for a preliminary injunction, the court may order the trial of the action on the merits to be advanced and consolidated with the hearing of the application. Even when this consolidation is not ordered, any evidence received upon an application for a preliminary injunction which would be admissible upon the trial on the merits becomes part of the record on the trial and need not be repeated upon the trial. This subdivision (b)(2) shall be so construed and applied as to save to the parties any rights they may have to trial by jury.” (See Me. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

"The issuance or refusal of a temporary injunction rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial court, dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case." (See Lewis Investments, Inc. v. City of Iowa City (2005) 703 N.W.2d 180, 184; Kleman v. Charles City Police Dep't (1985) 373 N.W.2d 90, 95; Kent Prods. v. Hoegh (1953) 245 Iowa 205, 211, 61 N.W.2d 711, 714.)

“Our review, therefore, is for an abuse of discretion.” (See id.)

“A district court abuses its discretion when the grounds underlying a district court order are clearly untenable or unreasonable.” (See Fenceroy v. Gelita USA, Inc. (2018) 908 N.W.2d 235, 241; Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Eagle Labs., Inc. (2015) 865 N.W.2d 528, 535; Mediacom Iowa, L.L.C. v. Inc. City of Spencer (2004) 682 N.W.2d 62, 66.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

It is well settled that “in deciding whether to enter a temporary injunction, courts consider the circumstances confronting the parties and balance the harm that a temporary injunction may prevent against the harm that may result from its issuance." (See League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Iowa Sec'y of State Paul Pate (2020) 950 N.W.2d 204, 222; Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co. (2001) 621 N.W.2d 178, 181.)

“It is also well settled that “where the litigant’s underlying claim is an equitable action seeking permanent injunctive relief, the district court must assess the likelihood that the [party] would be successful in showing entitlement to a permanent injunction in determining whether a request for a temporary injunction should be granted.” (See Shelton v. State (2018) 919 N.W.2d 635; Lewis Invs., Inc. v. City of Iowa City (2005) 703 N.W.2d 180, 184.)