Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Colorado

What Is a Motion for Preliminary Injunction?

Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

“A temporary or preliminary injunction is a remedy specifically designed to maintain the status quo in order to preserve the trial court's power to decide the case on the merits.” (See Zoning Board v. DeVilbiss (1986) 729 P.2d 353, 357.)

“Like a TRO, its purpose is to prevent irreparable harm prior to a decision on the merits of a case.” (See City of Golden v. Simpson (2004) 83 P.3d 87, 96.)

“To obtain a longer-lasting temporary order, a party may move for a preliminary injunction.” (See City of Golden v. Simpson (2004) 83 P.3d 87, 96.)

Factors Considered by the Court in Granting or Denying a Motion for Preliminary Injunction

“The moving party must satisfy six factors to obtain a preliminary injunction:

a reasonable probability of success on the merits;
a danger of real, immediate, and irreparable injury which may be prevented by injunctive relief;
lack of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law;
no disservice to the public interest;
balance of equities in favor of the injunction; and,
the injunction will preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits.”

(See, City of Golden v. Simpson (2004) 83 P.3d 87, 96.)

“When a trial court grants or denies a preliminary injunction, it is not adjudicating the ultimate rights of the parties.” (See id; Phoenix Capital, Inc. v. Dowell (2007) 176 P.3d 835, 839.)

"[F]indings made by a trial court after a preliminary injunction hearing are not determinative of the ultimate merits of the case." (See Anderson v. Pursell (2011) 244 P.3d 1188, 1196.)

“Instead, the trial court preserves its ability to render a decision after a full trial on the merits.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A trial court's preliminary injunction ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion and only overturned if the trial court's conclusion is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair.” (See Evans v. Romer (1993) 854 P.2d 1270, 1274; Cody Park v. Harder (2010) 251 P.3d 1, 6.)

“A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or based on a misapplication of the law.” (See Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso Cty. Sheriff's Dep't (2008) 196 P.3d 892, 899; Black v. Black (2020) 482 P.3d 460, 485.)

"In assessing whether a trial court's decision is manifestly unreasonable, arbitrary, or unfair, we ask not whether we would have reached a different result but, rather, whether the trial court's decision fell within a range of reasonable options." (See id.)

“A trial court's findings should be upheld on appeal when there is evidence in the record to support the findings.” (See Cody Park v. Harder (2010) 251 P.3d 1, 6.)

Recent Cases and Precedents Influencing Preliminary Injunction Decisions

It is well settled that “the granting of a preliminary injunction pursuant to C.R.C.P. 65(a) is to preserve the status quo, or otherwise to grant emergency relief.” (See Graham v. Hoyl (1965) 157 Colo. 338, 402 P.2d 604; MacLeod v. Miller (1980) 44 Colo. App. 313, 315.)

It is also well settled that “the power to grant a preliminary injunction should be exercised sparingly and cautiously and with a full conviction on the part of the trial court of its urgent necessity." (See Cornerstone Group v. Wheat Ridge (2006) 151 P.3d 601, 608.)

Dockets for Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Colorado

Sort By

Commissioner Of Agriculture v. Hewitt, Claudine Jean

8 Files

Filed

May 07, 2024

Judge

Hon. Kimberly Dawn Cortez-Rodriguez

Court

Costilla County

County

Costilla County, CO

Case #