Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Temporary Injunction in Maryland

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Temporary Injunction

“Injunctive relief is a preventive and protective remedy, aimed at future acts, and is not intended to redress past wrongs.” (See Bord v. Balt. Cnty. (2014) 220 Md. App. 529, 564; Ehrlich v. Perez (2006) 394 Md. 691, 733–34, 908 A.2d 1220.)

“Furthermore, a preliminary injunction serves to preserve the court's ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits by sustaining the status quo.” (See id.)

“[I]t is fundamental that a preliminary injunction does not issue as a matter of right, but only where it is necessary in order to preserve the status quo.” (See Harford Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ. of Harford Cnty. (1977) 281 Md. 574, 585, 380 A.2d 1041.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Temporary Injunction under Rule 15-504

Temporary Restraining Orders are governed under Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 15-504.

It states that “a temporary restraining order may be granted only if it clearly appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or other statement under oath that immediate, substantial, and irreparable harm will result to the person seeking the order before a full adversary hearing can be held on the propriety of a preliminary or final injunction.” (See Bagley v. O'Sullivan, No. 747, at *7 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 22, 2020); Md. R. Spec. Proc. 15-504(a).)

“When deciding whether to issue a temporary restraining order the court examines and makes appropriate findings regarding:

1. the likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits;
2. the balance of harm to each party if relief is or is not granted;
3. whether the moving party will suffer irreparable injury unless the order is granted; and
4. (D) a determination that granting the order is not contrary to the public interest.”

(See Md. R. Spec. Proc. 15-504(a).)

“A temporary restraining order may be granted without written or oral notice only if the applicant or the applicant's attorney certifies to the court in writing, and the court finds, that specified efforts commensurate with the circumstances have been made to give notice. Before ruling, the judge may communicate informally with other parties and any other person against whom the order is sought or their attorneys.” (See Md. R. Spec. Proc. 15-504(b).)

“In addition to complying with Rule15-502(e), the order shall:

1. contain the date and hour of issuance;
2. define the harm that the court finds will result if the temporary restraining order does not issue;
3. state the basis for the court's finding that the harm will be irreparable;
4. state that a party or any person affected by the order may apply for a modification or dissolution of the order on two days' notice, or such shorter notice as the court may prescribe, to the party who obtained the order; and
5. set forth an expiration date, which shall be not later than ten days after issuance for a resident and not later than 35 days after issuance for a nonresident.”

(See Md. R. Spec. Proc. 15-504(c).)

“The order shall be promptly filed with the clerk.” (See id.)

“On motion filed pursuant to Rule1-204, the court by order may extend the expiration date for no more than one additional like period, unless the person against whom the order is directed consents to an extension for a longer period. The order shall state the reasons for the extension.” (See id.)

“A temporary restraining order shall be served promptly on the person to whom it is directed, but it shall be binding on that person upon receipt of actual notice of it by any means.” (Md. R. Spec. Proc. 15-504(d).)

“If the court denies a temporary restraining order, the clerk shall note the denial by docket entry in accordance with Rule 2-601(b).” (See Md. R. Spec. Proc. 15-504(e).)

“A party or person affected by the order may apply for modification or dissolution of the order on two days' notice to the party who obtained the temporary restraining order, or on such shorter notice as the court may prescribe.” (See Md. R. Spec. Proc. 15-504(f).)

“The court shall proceed to hear and determine the application at the earliest possible time. The party who obtained the temporary restraining order has the burden of showing that it should be continued.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Temporary Injunction

"Generally, appellate courts review a trial court's determination to grant or deny injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion because trial courts, sitting as courts of equity, are granted broad discretionary authority to issue equitable relief.” (See Schisler v. State (2006) 394 Md. 519, 534; J.L. Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park Planning Comm. (2002) 368 Md. 71, 93, 792 A.2d 288, 301.)

“To the extent the Circuit Court's exercise of discretion is based on an interpretation of law, that aspect of the ruling below is reviewed de novo, because even with respect to a discretionary matter, a trial court must exercise its discretion in accordance with correct legal principles." (See Lamone v. Schlakman (2017) 451 Md. 468, 479; LeJeune v. Coin Acceptors, Inc. (2004) 381 Md. 288, 300–01, 849 A.2d 451, 458–59; Lamone v. Schlakman (2017) 451 Md. 468, 479.)

“We review the factual findings of the lower court for clear error.” (See Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God, Inc. (2016) 446 Md. 543, 551, 132 A.3d 866, 871; Lamone v. Schlakman (2017) 451 Md. 468, 479.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Temporary Injunction

It is well settled that “an injunction is an order commanding an act which the court regards as essential to justice, or restraining an act which it esteems contrary to equity and good conscience. Injunctive relief is considered an extraordinary remedy[.] It is reserved for the protection of property or other rights against actual or threatened injuries of a substantial character which cannot be adequately remedied in a court of law." (See Mahrle v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Wash. Cnty., No. 327, at *13 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 11, 2021); El Bey v. Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. (2001) 362 Md. 339, 353; B & P Enterprises v. Overland Equipment Co. (2000) 133 Md. App. 583, 631.)

It is also well settled that a “violation of an injunction or restraining order that is valid and operative is punishable as a contempt of court. The power to punish a violation of an injunction or restraining order rests in the court which granted it. To punish the violation of an injunction, the act complained of must fall squarely within the restraining language of the injunction.” (See Bord v. Balt. Cnty. (2014) 220 Md. App. 529, 563; Bailey v. Miller (1963) 233 Md. 138, 142, 195 A.2d 601.)