Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Nevada

Background

“A preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo is normally available upon a showing that the party seeking it enjoys a reasonable probability of success on the merits and that the defendant's conduct, if allowed to continue, will result in irreparable harm for which compensatory damages is an inadequate remedy.” (Buxton v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, Case No.: 2:15-cv-01475-JCM-VCF, at *3 [D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2015] quoting No. One Rent-A-Car v. Ramada Inns, Inc. (1978) 94 Nev. 779, 780-81; Winter v. Nat. Resources Defense Council, Inc. (2008) 555 U.S. 7.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Requirements for Preliminary Injunctions

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, ‘the moving party must show that there is a likelihood of success on the merits and that the nonmoving party's conduct, should it continue, would cause irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.’” (Hospitality Int'l Grp. v. Gratitude Grp., LLC, No. 69585, at *5 [Nev. Dec. 2, 2016] citing Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Res., Div. of Water Res. v. Foley (2005) 121 Nev. 77, 80.)

“[A] district court's factual determinations will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous or unfounded.” (Hospitality Int'l Grp. v. Gratitude Grp., LLC, No. 69585, at *5 [Nev. Dec. 2, 2016] citing Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't (2004) 120 Nev. 712, 721.)

Immediate Appeals for Preliminary Injunctions or TROs

“NRAP 3A(b)(3) creates a right of interlocutory appeal from orders ‘granting or refusing to grant an injunction or dissolving or refusing to dissolve an injunction.’” (Hospitality Int'l Grp. v. Gratitude Grp., LLC, No. 69585, at *2-3 [Nev. Dec. 2, 2016].)

“Such jurisdiction is limited to preliminary or permanent injunctions; it does not reach temporary restraining orders, which are too short-lived to sustain interlocutory appellate review.” (Hospitality Int'l Grp. v. Gratitude Grp., LLC, No. 69585, at *2-3 [Nev. Dec. 2, 2016] citing Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks (2011) 127 Nev. 896, 900.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The grant or denial of preliminary injunctive relief is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court, which [courts of appeal] review deferentially, for abuse. The moving party bears the burden of providing testimony, exhibits, or documentary evidence to support its request for an injunction.”

(Hospitality Int'l Grp. v. Gratitude Grp., LLC, No. 69585, at *3-4 [Nev. Dec. 2, 2016] citing Labor Comm'r of State of Nev. v. Littlefield (2007) 123 Nev. 35, 38; S.O.C., Inc. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel (2001) 117 Nev. 403, 407; Coronet Homes, Inc. v. Mylan (1968) 84 Nev. 435, 437; compare 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil, § 2949, at 237 (2013) [to sustain a preliminary injunction, ‘[e]vidence that goes beyond the unverified allegations of the pleadings and motion papers must be presented’], with Las Vegas Novelty, Inc. v. Fernandez (1990) 106 Nev. 113, [noting that NRCP 65 was drawn from an earlier version of FRCP 65, making it appropriate to look to federal cases and treatises in construing our rule].)

The Court’s Decision

In contract cases, “[i]t is black letter law that ‘injunction will not be ordered if damages would be adequate to protect the expectation interest of the injured party.’” (Triangulum Partners, LLC v. Galaxy Gaming, Inc. (2021) 484 P.3d 950 quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 359(1) [Am. Law Inst. 1981].)