Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Michigan

Background

“As stated by [the Michigan Appeals Court] in Local 229, Michigan Council 25, AFSCME v. Detroit, 124 Mich. App. 791, 795, ‘[a] preliminary injunction should not be granted where irreparable injury is not imminent.’” (Council 25, Afscme v. Wayne (1984) 136 Mich. App. 21, 26 citing id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the court must consider:

1. the likelihood that the party seeking the injunction will prevail on the merits;
2. the danger that the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued;
3. the risk that the party seeking the injunction would be harmed more by the absence of an injunction than the opposing party would be by the granting of the relief; and
4. the harm to the public interest if the injunction is issued. This Court will not disturb a trial court's grant or denial of a preliminary injunction absent an abuse of discretion.

(Fruehauf Trailer v. Hagelthorn (1995) 208 Mich. App. 447, 449 citing Campau v. McMath (1990) 185 Mich. App. 724, 729.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (AFSCME v. Wayne (1984) 136 Mich. App. 21, 25 citing Grand Rapids v. Central Land Co. (1940) 294 Mich. 103, 112; Michigan Consolidated Gas Co v Public Service Comm. (1980) 99 Mich. App. 470, 478.)

“[The Court of Appeals will sustain the trial court's findings of fact unless we are convinced that we would have reached a different result.” (Fruehauf Trailer v. Hagelthorn (1995) 208 Mich. App. 447, 449 citing Kern v. Flint (1983) 125 Mich. App. 24, 27.)

The Court’s Decision

“The object of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo, so that upon the final hearing the rights of the parties may be determined without injury to either.” (Council 25, AFSCME v. Wayne (1984) 136 Mich. App. 21, 25-26 citing Gates v. Detroit M R Co. (1980) 151 Mich. 548, 551.)

“The statutes quo which will be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” (Council 25, supra, id., citing Steggles v. National Discount Corp. (1949) 326 Mich. 44, 41; Van Buren School Dist. v. Wayne Circuit Judge (1975) 61 Mich. App. 6, 20.)