Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Montana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent further injury or irreparable harm by preserving the status quo of the subject in controversy pending an adjudication on the merits." (See City of Billings v. County Water Dist. (1997) 281 Mont. 219, 226.)

“A preliminary injunction does not resolve the merits of a case but rather prevents further injury or irreparable harm…The court has a duty to balance the equities and minimize potential damage when considering an application for a preliminary injunction.” (See Four Rivers Seed Co. v. Cir. K Farms, Inc. (2000) 303 Mont. 342, 345; Porter v. KS Partnership (1981), 192 Mont. 175, 180, 627 P.2d 836, 839.)

"The court receiving an application for injunction must ‘make an order requiring cause to be shown, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted.’" (See Flying T Ranch, LLC. v. Catlin Ranch, LP. (2020) 400 Mont. 1, 6; City of Great Falls v. Forbes (2011) MT 12, ¶ 12, 359 Mont. 140, 247 P.3d 1086 [quoting § 27-19-301(2), MCA].)

Rules for Filing a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Section 27-19-201 of the Montana Code governs when a preliminary injunction may be granted.

“A preliminary injunction order or temporary restraining order may be granted when the applicant establishes that:

1. the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits;
2. the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
3. the balance of equities tips in the applicant's favor; and
4. the order is in the public interest.”

(See Mont. Code § 27-19-201(1).)

“An injunction order may be granted in either of the following cases between persons, not including a person being sued in that person's official capacity:

1. when it appears that the adverse party, while the action is pending, threatens or is about to remove or to dispose of the adverse party's property with intent to defraud the applicant, in which case an injunction order may be granted to restrain the removal or disposition; or
2. when it appears that the applicant has applied for an order under the provisions of 40-4-121 or an order of protection under Title 40, chapter 15.”

(See Mont. Code § 27-19-201(2).)

“The applicant for an injunction provided for in this section bears the burden of demonstrating the need for an injunction order.” (See Mont. Code § 27-19-201(3).)

“It is the intent of the legislature that the language in subsection (1) mirror the federal preliminary injunction standard, and that interpretation and application of subsection (1) closely follow United States supreme court case law.” (See Mont. Code § 27-19-201(4).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

“District courts exercise discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction…” (See Flying T Ranch, LLC v. Catlin Ranch, LP (2022) 409 Mont. 478, 485.)

“[D]istrict courts are afforded a high degree of discretion to grant or deny preliminary injunctions, [and] we will not overturn the district court’s decision absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” (See Flying T Ranch, LLC. v. Catlin Ranch, LP. (2020) 400 Mont. 1, 5; BAM Ventures, LLC v. Schifferman (2019) MT 67, ¶ 7, 395 Mont. 160, 437 P.3d 142.)

"A manifest abuse of discretion is one that is obvious, evident, or unmistakable.” (See id; Caldwell v. Clifford Cody Sabo, Also Known Constr., Inc. (2013) 371 Mont. 328, 333.)

“We review a district court's factual findings for clear error. A factual finding is clearly erroneous if the finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, if the trial court misapprehended the effect of that evidence, or if, although there is evidence to support it, our review of the record leaves us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” (See Flying T Ranch, LLC v. Catlin Ranch, LP (2022) 409 Mont. 478, 486.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

It is well settled that "the statute's subsections are disjunctive; therefore, [d]emonstration of one, and not all, of the subsections suffices to authorize a court to grant equitable, preliminary injunctive relief, when its discretion is so moved. [T]he court should decide merely whether a sufficient case has been made out to warrant the preservation of the…status quo until trial.... An applicant need not make out such a case as would entitle him to final judgment on the merits." (See Flying T Ranch, LLC v. Catlin Ranch, LP (2022) 409 Mont. 478, 486-87; BAM Ventures, LLC v. Schifferman (2019) 395 Mont. 160, 164; Sweet Grass Farms v. Board of Cty. Commissioners (2000) 300 Mont. 66, 70.)

As such, it is also well settled that “a preliminary injunction should not issue absent an accompanying prima facie showing, or showing that it is at least uncertain, that the applicant will suffer irreparable injury prior to final resolution on the merits.” (See id; Davis v. Westphal (2017) 389 Mont. 251, 265.)