Motion for Preliminary Injunction in New Mexico

Background

“In the absence of New Mexico authority concerning the factors a trial court must consider in ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, [state trial courts] turn to federal cases interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which is similar to SCRA 1986, 1-066.” (LaBalbo v. Hymes (1993) 115 N.M. 314, 317-18 citing State v. Clements (1988) 108 N.M. 13 [basis for consulting judicial interpretations of federal rule].)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show that:

1. the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted;
2. the threatened injury outweighs any damage the injunction might cause the defendant;
3. issuance of the injunction will not be adverse to the public's interest; and
4. there is a substantial likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the merits.

(LaBalbo v. Hymes (1993) 115 N.M. 314, 318 quoting Tri-State v. Shoshone River Power, Inc. (1986) 805 F.2d 351 [10th Cir.].)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“We review the trial court's decision regarding whether to grant injunctive relief for abuse of discretion.” Padilla v. Lawrence (1984) 101 N.M. 556.)

“The trial court may abuse its discretion by:

• applying the incorrect standard for a preliminary injunction or incorrect substantive law;
• resting issuance of the injunction on clearly erroneous findings of fact; or
• applying the standards in a manner that results in an abuse of discretion.”

(LaBalbo v. Hymes (1993) 115 N.M. 314, 318 citing 2 J. Moore, J. Lucas, K. Sinclair, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 65.04[2] [2d ed. 1990].)

“However, if a plaintiff failed to establish one of the required factors, the reviewing court should affirm denial of the injunction.” (LaBalbo v. Hymes (1993) 115 N.M. 314, 318 citing Libertarian Party of Texas v. Fainter (1984) 741 F.2d 728 [5th Cir.].)

The Court’s Decision

“A preliminary injunction does not determine the merits of the case, nor does it determine controverted facts.” (Insure New Mexico v. McGonigle (2000) 128 N.M. 611, 614 citing 43 C.J.S. Injunctions § 5, at 745-46 [1978].)

“The trial court may reconsider the facts upon which the preliminary decree was issued in deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction.” (Insure New Mexico v. McGonigle (2000) 128 N.M. 611, 614 citing Economy Roofing Insulating Co. v. Zumaris (1995) 538 N.W.2d 641, 648 [Iowa] [holding that denial of a preliminary injunction does not foreclose a trial on the merits for a permanent injunction].)