Motion for Preliminary Injunction in New Hampshire

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

“The issuance of injunctions, either temporary or permanent, has long been considered an extraordinary remedy.” (See N.H. v. Mottolo (2007) 155 N.H. 57, 62-63; Murphy v. McQuade Realty, Inc. (1982) 122 N.H. 314, 316, 444 A.2d 530.)

“A preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy that preserves the status quo pending a final determination of the case on the merits.” (See N.H. v. Mottolo (2007) 155 N.H. 57, 62-63; Kukene v. Genualdo (2000) 145 N.H. 1, 4, 749 A.2d 309.)

“An injunction should not issue unless there is an immediate danger of irreparable harm to the party seeking injunctive relief, and there is no adequate remedy at law.” (See N.H. v. Mottolo (2007) 155 N.H. 57, 62-63; Murphy v. McQuade Realty, Inc. (1982) 122 N.H. 314, 316, 444 A.2d 530.)

“Also, a party seeking an injunction must show that it would likely succeed on the merits.” (See id; Kukene v. Genualdo (2000) 145 N.H. 1, 4, 749 A.2d 309.)

“It is within the trial court's sound discretion to grant an injunction after consideration of the facts and established principles of equity.” (See N.H. v. Mottolo (2007) 155 N.H. 57, 62-63; Thompson v. N.H. Bd. of Medicine (1998) 143 N.H. 107, 109, 719 A.2d 609.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Rule 161 of the New Hampshire Circuit Court Rules governs temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.

Subsection B specifically addresses preliminary injunctions.

“No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse Party and a preliminary injunction shall only be issued by a judge of the Probate Court.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div. 161(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.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div. 161(b)(2).)

“Unless the Court, for good cause shown, shall otherwise order, no restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of an injunction bond by the applicant, in such sums as the Court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any Party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. No such bond shall ordinarily be required of the United States or of the State of New Hampshire. The provisions of Rule 163 apply to a surety upon a bond or undertaking under this Rule.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div. 161(c).)

“Unless the Court, for good cause shown, otherwise orders, an injunction or restraining order shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, the act or acts sought to be restrained; and is binding only upon the Parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and Attorneys, and upon those Persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.” (See N.H. R. Cir. Ct. Prob. Div. 161(d).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

“It is within the trial court's sound discretion to grant an injunction after consideration of the facts and established principles of equity.” (See N.H. v. Mottolo (2007) 155 N.H. 57, 63; Thompson v. N.H. Bd. of Medicine (1998) 143 N.H. 107, 109, 719 A.2d 609.)

“We will uphold the issuance of an injunction absent an error of law, an unsustainable exercise of discretion, or clearly erroneous findings of fact.” (See id; State v. Lambert (2001) 147 N.H. 295, 296, 787 A.2d 175 [explaining ‘unsustainable’ exercise of discretion].)

“Finally, we note that without a sufficient record of the proceedings below, we assume that the evidence supports the result reached by the trial court, and our review is limited to legal errors apparent on the face of the record.” (See N.H. v. Mottolo (2007) 155 N.H. 57, 63; Tiberghein v. B.R. Jones Roofing Co. (2004) 151 N.H. 391, 394, 856 A.2d 21.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

It is well settled that a “preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy . . . that . . . preserve[s] the status quo pending a final determination of the case on the merits. A denial of a preliminary injunction based on the failure to show a likelihood of success should not constitute a judgment that the underlying claim is frivolous, foreclosing a trial.” (See Kukene v. Genualdo (2000) 145 N.H. 1, 4.)

Because of this, it is also well settled that "a preliminary injunction is customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits. Accordingly, it is generally inappropriate for a [trial] court at the preliminary-injunction stage to give a final judgment on the merits." (See Spengler v. Porter (1999) 144 N.H. 163, 168; University of Texas v. Camenisch (1981) 451 U.S. 390, 395.)