Marathon Construction & Demolition, LLC v. King Metal Recycling & Processing Corp.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendants Marathon Construction and Demolition, LLC, and OAX, LLC, appealed a circuit court order granting injunctive relief to the plaintiff King Metal Recycling and Processing Corporation. King Metal sued Marathon and OAX, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, interference with contractual relations, and breach of fiduciary duty/duty of loyalty. King Metal alleged that it had entered into an agreement with Marathon to purchase, demolish, and redevelop the former Delphi Industrial Complex in Limestone County ("the Delphi Project"). King Metal also alleged that OAX was formed by it and Marathon as the entity through which they would complete the Delphi Project. King Metal alleged that it filed the complaint after becoming concerned that it was being "frozen out" of the Delphi Project. It also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The trial court entered an order for a writ of seizure in which it ordered that the net proceeds of the Delphi Project be seized. Defendants filed a motion to quash the order for a writ of seizure, arguing, in part, that the writ was the incorrect procedure for the remedy sought and asserting that King Metal should have instead requested a temporary restraining order. King Metal filed a motion in opposition to the defendants' motion to quash the order for a writ of seizure, and after a hearing, the writ of seizure was set aside, and a temporary restraining order issued instead. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision to enjoin sale portion of the Delphi site because it did not conform with the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. "This decision should not be interpreted as precluding King Metal, should it deem it necessary, from asking the trial court to again issue a preliminary injunction, provided that any such injunction complies with Rule 65, Ala. R. Civ. P."
Download PDF
REL: 05/17/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1120310 and 1120368 Marathon C o n s t r u c t i o n and Demolition, LLC, and OAX, LLC v. King Metal R e c y c l i n g and P r o c e s s i n g C o r p o r a t i o n Appeals WISE, from Limestone C i r c u i t (CV-12-0170) Justice. Marathon C o n s t r u c t i o n and Court and D e m o l i t i o n , LLC ("Marathon"), OAX, L L C ("OAX"), t h e d e f e n d a n t s b e l o w , a p p e a l order entered by t h e Limestone Circuit f r o m an Court granting i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f t o the p l a i n t i f f below, K i n g Metal Recycling 1120310; 1120368 and Processing Corporation ("King Metal"). We reverse and remand. F a c t s and On August 20, Procedural History 2012, King Metal sued Marathon and OAX, a l l e g i n g breach of c o n t r a c t , breach of the i m p l i e d covenant of g o o d f a i t h and fair d e a l i n g , u n j u s t enrichment, i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s , and b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a r y of loyalty. K i n g M e t a l a l l e g e d t h a t i t had agreement w i t h Marathon t o p u r c h a s e , entered into demolish, and the former D e l p h i I n d u s t r i a l Complex i n Limestone Delphi Project"). by i t and complete the D e l p h i King becoming Delphi Metal Project. generated entity through the that that At i t filed i t was the Delphi location further ("the was formed they would complaint after which Project. same the being "frozen time, King f o r a prejudgment attachment by amount, and the alleged concerned application being as an redevelop County K i n g M e t a l a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t OAX Marathon duty/duty of disbursed, Project, these concealed 2 Metal of filed the an o f any net profits identify "to funds, out" the nature, and or prevent disposed them of by from the 1120310; 1120368 defendants." It also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction "a) r e q u i r i n g D e f e n d a n t s t o i d e n t i f y , d e s c r i b e , and p r o d u c e s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d i n g any a c c o u n t ( s ) which have c o n t a i n e d o r c o n t a i n any p r o c e e d s o f t h e D e l p h i P r o j e c t ; b) f r e e z i n g any n e t p r o f i t s o f t h e D e l p h i P r o j e c t which are i n the p o s s e s s i o n or c o n t r o l of t h e D e f e n d a n t s a n d / o r any f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n ( s ) or o u t s i d e t h i r d p a r t y ( i e s ) u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o r c o n t r o l o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s ; and c) o r d e r t h a t t h e n e t p r o c e e d s o f t h e D e l p h i P r o j e c t n o t be d i s b u r s e d i n any manner w h a t s o e v e r , i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o any o f t h e p a r t i e s o f t h i s c a s e o r any agents, p r i n c i p l e s , or a f f i l i a t e d e n t i t i e s t h e r e o f , u n t i l f u r t h e r order of the Court." On A u g u s t 23, 2012, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r f o r a w r i t of s e i z u r e i n which i t ordered t h a t the net proceeds the Delphi defendants seizure, P r o j e c t be filed a motion arguing, procedure seized. On August to quash the i n p a r t , t h a t the order writ motion court 2012. 2012, the for a writ the of incorrect f o r t h e remedy s o u g h t and a s s e r t i n g t h a t K i n g M e t a l s h o u l d have i n s t e a d r e q u e s t e d a t e m p o r a r y King Metal was 28, of filed a motion to quash the order scheduled a hearing restraining i n o p p o s i t i o n to the for a writ on the of s e i z u r e . motions order. defendants' The trial f o r September 4, 1 The record before this t r a n s c r i p t of t h a t h e a r i n g . 1 3 Court does not include a 1120310; 1120368 On October 2, 2012, the trial court entered an order s e t t i n g a s i d e the order f o r a w r i t o f s e i z u r e and d i s p o s i n g of other the p a r t i e s . in issues relevant r a i s e d by That order provided, part: "The D e f e n d a n t s ' M o t i o n t o Quash t h i s C o u r t ' s Order of S e i z u r e or Prejudgment Attachment h a v i n g b e e n s e t b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on S e p t e m b e r 4, 2012 and a t t h a t t i m e t h e p a r t i e s made known t o t h e C o u r t t h a t an a g r e e m e n t had b e e n r e a c h e d f o r t h e u l t i m a t e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e m o t i o n w h i c h was p r e s e n t e d f o r r e c o r d a t t h a t t i m e and a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f same i t i s t h e r e f o r e , "ORDERED BY Writ THE COURT as follows: " 1 . T h a t t h i s C o u r t ' s A u g u s t 23, of S e i z u r e i s s e t a s i d e ; 2012 Order of "2. D e f e n d a n t s s h a l l p r o d u c e s e l e c t e d e l e c t r o n i c a n d / o r h a r d c o p y r e c o r d s and documents r e l a t e d t o the Delphi Project, s u f f i c i e n t to i d e n t i f y the n a t u r e , p u r p o s e , p a y e e / p a y o r , and amount o f any and all funds received or disbursed, directly or i n d i r e c t l y , by any o f t h e P a r t i e s o r any other i n d i v i d u a l ( s ) or e n t i t y ( i e s ) i n v o l v e d i n the D e l p h i P r o j e c t , as d e f i n e d i n t h e V e r i f i e d C o m p l a i n t . It s h a l l be u n d e r s t o o d t h a t ' n a t u r e ' and ' p u r p o s e ' mean n o t a t i o n s s u f f i c i e n t t o e x p l a i n what t h e payment was for. The s e l e c t e d d o c u m e n t ( s ) p r o d u c e d s h a l l show a l l monies r e c e i v e d or d i s b u r s e d , a l l t r a n s a c t i o n s consummated, a l l income o r f u n d s r e c e i v e d , a l l d i s b u r s e m e n t s o r f u n d s p a i d , and t h e n a t u r e , amount, and c o m p l e t e a c t i v i t y f o r a l l a c c o u n t s o p e r a t e d o r m a i n t a i n e d i n connection w i t h the D e l p h i P r o j e c t ; " 4 1120310; 1120368 "7. D e f e n d a n t s have r e p r e s e n t e d a n d w a r r a n t e d t o t h e C o u r t t h a t p r e s e n t l y t h e r e a r e a n d have b e e n no n e t p r o f i t s ( d e f i n e d as e x c e s s f u n d s e x c e e d i n g t h e t o t a l debt and o p e r a t i n g expenses o f t h e D e l p h i P r o j e c t ) from t h e D e l p h i P r o j e c t . From t h e d a t e o f t h i s Order f o r w a r d , Defendants a r e e n j o i n e d from taking, requesting, distributing, or allowing or d i r e c t i n g t h e d i s b u r s e m e n t o f any n e t p r o f i t s f r o m the D e l p h i P r o j e c t u n t i l f u r t h e r o r d e r o f t h e C o u r t or w r i t t e n agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s (Capitalization original; emphasis added.) On November 13, 2012, K i n g M e t a l f i l e d a m o t i o n , w h i c h i t s a y s was f i l e d pursuant t o Rule 7, A l a . R. C i v . P., m i n o r amendment o f t h e O c t o b e r 2, 2012, o r d e r . the fora Paragraph 3 of order provided: "The r e c o r d s a n d documents p r o d u c e d b y D e f e n d a n t s pursuant to this Order shall be p r o d u c e d as ' A t t o r n e y s ' and C l i e n t s ' Eyes O n l y . ' Plaintiff [ K i n g M e t a l ] and i t s d i r e c t o r s , o f f i c e r s , employees, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a g e n t s , a n d p r i n c i p a l s s h a l l n o t be entitled t o make o r r e c e i v e any c o p i e s o f t h e r e c o r d s a n d documents p r o d u c e d , a n d s h a l l n o t be entitled t o make any n o t e s o f t h e r e c o r d s a n d documents p r o d u c e d . ( T h i s r e s t r i c t i o n does n o t a p p l y t o c o u n s e l f o r P l a i n t i f f [ K i n g M e t a l ] , who s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o make a n d r e c e i v e c o p i e s a n d make n o t e s ; h o w e v e r , t h o s e c o p i e s a n d n o t e s s h a l l n o t be p r o v i d e d t o [ K i n g M e t a l ] o r i t s d i r e c t o r s , o f f i c e r s , p r i n c i p a l s , employees, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , o r agents) " (Emphasis receive" added.) be s t r i c k e n King from Metal asked the second 5 that t h e words sentence "or and t h a t t h e 1120310; 1120368 t h i r d s e n t e n c e be amended a c c o r d i n g l y . the t r i a l On court granted November 28, the 2012, t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s be On November 16, 2012, motion. King Metal "enjoined filed a motion, from s e l l i n g , asking transferring, l e a s i n g , o r e n c u m b e r i n g any p o r t i o n o f t h e f o r m e r D e l p h i site a b s e n t f u r t h e r o r d e r of the C o u r t or w r i t t e n agreement of parties." In support of the motion, i t asserted the that redevelopment of the p r o p e r t y on w h i c h t h e D e l p h i Project i s located the defendants was proceeding under s u b j e c t t o t h e O c t o b e r 2, 2012, c o n t r o l of the order, w i t h the caveats that t h e r e had n o t b e e n any n e t p r o f i t s and t h a t , i f t h e r e were any n e t p r o f i t s , t h e y w o u l d be f r o z e n p e n d i n g f u r t h e r o r d e r o f the c o u r t or agreement of the p a r t i e s . that, i n seeking a l l o w the while King Metal t h e O c t o b e r 2, 2012, order, d e m o l i t i o n work t o p r o c e e d on still the also i t was asserted trying Delphi Project, p r o t e c t i n g the r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s u n t i l r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s c o u l d be r e s o l v e d , and t h a t e v e r y a t t h e t i m e was t h a t the defendants intended to those indication t o t a k e down t h e b u i l d i n g s on t h e s i t e and t o s e l l t h e s c r a p m a t e r i a l s and old equipment However, had for profit. i t asserted that i t l e a r n e d t h a t d e m o l i t i o n work a t t h e s i t e had s l o w e d o r s t o p p e d 6 1120310; 1120368 and that sell, i t appeared transfer, or that lease the d e f e n d a n t s were p r e p a r i n g some o r a l l the property to to third parties. That same day, motion, s t a t i n g the trial court granted King Metal's simply: "[King M e t a l ' s ] motion to e n j o i n s a l e , t r a n s f e r , l e a s e o r encumbrance o f t h e D e l p h i P r o p e r t y f i l e d by K i n g M e t a l R e c y c l i n g & P r o c e s s i n g Corp. i s hereby granted." On November 29, 2012, to t h e d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d an emergency m o t i o n d i s s o l v e the order, that motion. a hearing and On and K i n g M e t a l December 17, denied the November 28, 2012, order. consolidated the appeals 2012, filed the t r i a l defendants' the court conducted motion to d i s s o l v e the These appeals for an o p p o s i t i o n t o followed. purpose of 2 We writing have one opinion. Standard of Review "'We have o f t e n s t a t e d : "The d e c i s i o n to grant or to deny a preliminary i n j u n c t i o n i s w i t h i n the t r i a l court's sound d i s c r e t i o n . I n r e v i e w i n g an o r d e r granting a preliminary injunction, the Court determines whether the t r i a l c o u r t The defendants s e p a r a t e l y appealed both the t r i a l c o u r t ' s g r a n t o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l to d i s s o l v e the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . See Rule 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) A , A l a . R. App. P. 2 7 1120310; 1120368 e x c e e d e d t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . " S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f A l a b a m a , N.A. v. W e b b - S t i l e s Co., 931 So. 2d 706, 709 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . "'A p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d i s s u e d o n l y when t h e p a r t y seeking i n j u n c t i o n demonstrates: be an "'"'(1) that without the injunction the [party] would suffer irreparable injury; (2) t h a t t h e [ p a r t y ] has no a d e q u a t e remedy a t law; (3) that the [ p a r t y ] has a t l e a s t a r e a s o n a b l e c h a n c e o f s u c c e s s on t h e u l t i m a t e m e r i t s o f h i s c a s e ; and (4) t h a t the hardship imposed on the [ p a r t y opposing the preliminary injunction] by the injunction would not u n r e a s o n a b l y outweigh the benefit accruing to the [ p a r t y seeking the i n j u n c t i o n ] . ' " "'Ormco C o r p . v. J o h n s , 869 So. 2d 1109, 1113 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Perley v. T a p s c a n , I n c . , 646 So. 2d 585, 587 (Ala. 1994)).'" Colbert Cnty. (Ala. 2011) 1173, 1175-76 Bd. of (quoting E d u c . v. Holiday James, Isle, 83 LLC So. v. 3d 473, Adkins, 12 477-78 So. 3d erred in (Ala. 2008)). Discussion The entering defendants argue the p r e l i m i n a r y injunction should be that the trial i n j u n c t i o n and dissolved. 8 court t h a t the Specifically, preliminary they contend 1120310; 1120368 t h a t i t d i d not comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s R. C i v . P., trial f o r e n t e r i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n because the court hearing, issued without the injunction requiring t o be agree. enjoined. However, we a security conducting without specific the must f i r s t reasons bond, a and For 3 without f o r t h e i n j u n c t i o n and t h e s e t t i n g f o r t h the reasons acts o f R u l e 65, A l a . set forth below, d i s p o s e o f an argument we raised by K i n g M e t a l . King 2012, Metal argues order d i d not that the constitute and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , c o m p l i a n c e 65 was not necessary. the October of the 2, 2012, defendants, November 28, 2012, enforcement of October 2012, 2, injunction. the trial a new c o u r t ' s November preliminary injunction w i t h the requirements of Rule S p e c i f i c a l l y , K i n g M e t a l contends order, which e n j o i n e d c e r t a i n was the order controlling was merely order a rather than a and aspect new that activities that clarification preliminary-injunction order 28, of the and the preliminary A c c o r d i n g l y , King M e t a l a s s e r t s t h a t i t s motion T h e d e f e n d a n t s make o t h e r c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s November 28, 2012, o r d e r , i n c l u d i n g a r g u m e n t s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d not comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n Holiday I s l e , supra. Because the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 65 i s d i s p o s i t i v e , we need not r e a c h the o t h e r arguments. 3 9 1120310; 1120368 was a m o t i o n s e e k i n g t h e amendment o f an o r d e r and was p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7, A l a . R. C i v . P., a preliminary injunction filed r a t h e r than a motion f o r f i l e d pursuant to Rule 65. K i n g M e t a l s t y l e d i t s m o t i o n as a " M o t i o n t o E n j o i n Sale, T r a n s f e r , L e a s e , o r Encumbrance o f t h e D e l p h i P r o p e r t y A b s e n t C o u r t O r d e r , " and i t s t a t e d , i n t h e f i r s t l i n e o f t h e m o t i o n , t h a t i t was p r o c e e d i n g " [ p ] u r s u a n t t o R u l e 7," A l a . R. C i v . P. However, "'[t]he determines substance what kind of of motion B r o w n i n g , 85 So. 3d 954, 958 n.2 W a d d e l l , 689 So. 2d 23, 26 a motion and not i t is.'" Cornelius ( A l a . 2011) (Ala. 1997)). i t s style v. ( q u o t i n g E v a n s v. Although King Metal c i t e d R u l e 7 i n t h e m o t i o n and made r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e O c t o b e r 2, 2012, o r d e r , i t d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y a s k t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o amend, c l a r i f y , fact, whereas or e n f o r c e the October the October 2, 2012, 2, 2012, order order. "enjoined In [the defendants] from t a k i n g , r e q u e s t i n g , d i s t r i b u t i n g , or a l l o w i n g or directing Delphi Project agreement granted the of until the a motion defendants disbursement "from further parties," i n which of any net p r o f i t s from order of the Court or the November King Metal selling, 28, sought transferring, 10 the written 2012, order to enjoin the leasing, or 1120310; 1120368 encumbering further order parties." on any p o r t i o n of the former Court or Delphi written site absent agreement of the Thus, t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r , w h i c h focused the d i s p o s i t i o n the of of the "former Delphi site," was b r o a d e r t h a n t h e O c t o b e r 2, 2012, o r d e r , w h i c h f o c u s e d on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n Delphi Project. or disbursement of net p r o f i t s not the October state solely from t h e A l s o , i n i t s November 28, 2012, m o t i o n , Metal d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y ask the t r i a l enforce much 2, 2012, o r d e r , i n t h e November 28, court t o c l a r i f y or and t h e t r i a l 2012, King order court d i d that c l a r i f y i n g o r e n f o r c i n g t h e O c t o b e r 2, 2012, o r d e r . i t was Finally, d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o d i s s o l v e t h e November 28, 2012, order, the t r i a l court stated that i t had i s s u e d a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n a n d d i d n o t g i v e any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t , by i s s u i n g t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r , i t i n t e n d e d m e r e l y t o c l a r i f y o r e n f o r c e t h e O c t o b e r 2, 2012, o r d e r . conclude that the t r i a l a new preliminary Therefore, c o u r t ' s November 28, 2012, o r d e r injunction and that i t d i d not we was merely c l a r i f y o r e n f o r c e t h e O c t o b e r 2, 2012, p r e l i m i n a r y - i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r upon w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s h a d a g r e e d . 11 1120310; 1120368 We now address the c o u r t d i d not 65, A l a . R. First, not Civ. comply w i t h the C i v . P., the the requested 65(a) ( 1 ) , A l a . injunction R. contend that requirements shall be P., issued of the Rule trial court 65(a)(1), conducting provides without that notice to R. after a hearing. "[n]o did Ala. i n j u n c t i o n w i t h i n hours i t , without Civ. trial injunctions. because i t i s s u e d the King Metal arguments t h a t the requirements set f o r t h i n Rule governing defendants comply w i t h P., defendants' Rule preliminary the adverse party." In B l o u n t 850, 855 R e c y c l i n g , LLC v. ( A l a . 2003), t h i s Court City o f C u l l m a n , 884 So. explained: "As t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s r e c o g n i z e d i n Bamberg v. Bamberg, 441 So. 2d 970, 971 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 3 ) , w h i l e R u l e 65, A l a . R. C i v . P., 'does not explicitly require that oral testimony be p r e s e n t e d a t a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n h e a r i n g , some type of evidence which s u b s t a n t i a t e s the p l e a d i n g s i s i m p l i c i t l y r e q u i r e d by s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 2 ) o f t h e rule.' The C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s i n Bamberg continued, stating: 'In o r d e r t o comply with p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s , n o t i c e and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d a r e n e c e s s a r y u n d e r R u l e 6 5 ( a ) . ' Id. "In t h i s case i t appears t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t did not conduct a h e a r i n g on the Commission's petition for a preliminary injunction; therefore, t h e C o m m i s s i o n d i d n o t p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e and B l o u n t R e c y c l i n g was n o t g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . The i n j u n c t i o n must be d i s s o l v e d f o r f a i l u r e 12 2d 1120310; 1120368 to comply w i t h Rule c a u s e remanded." Similarly, in this case, 6 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., and i t appears t h a t the t r i a l the court d i d n o t c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g on K i n g M e t a l ' s m o t i o n f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y injunction. unverified did not Clearly, motion present King Metal, i n support any of the evidence, and which filed preliminary the only an injunction, defendants were not g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e m o t i o n . See Bamberg v. 1983) Bamberg, 441 (noting that unverified "at pleading, So. 2d 970, 971 (Ala. Civ. a preliminary injunction without proof of not App. hearing an i t s averments, is i n s u f f i c i e n t i n and o f i t s e l f upon w h i c h t o b a s e t h e of a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n " ) . 4 issuance Therefore, the t r i a l c o u r t d i d comply w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 65(a). 5 K i n g M e t a l a r g u e s t h a t t h e December 17, 2012, hearing constituted a hearing f o r the purposes of Rule 65(a). However, i t does n o t c i t e any a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h a t proposition. Rather, K i n g M e t a l merely c i t e s a case t h a t addresses whether a p a r t y r e c e i v e d s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e of a h e a r i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n . Therefore, i t has n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P., and we w i l l n o t a d d r e s s i t s argument i n t h i s r e g a r d . 4 A l t h o u g h R u l e 65(b) allows f o r temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r s t o be e n t e r e d w i t h o u t n o t i c e , t h e p a r t i e s do n o t a p p e a r t o a r g u e t h a t t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r was a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g order. 5 13 1120310; 1120368 Second, n o t comply P., the defendants contend t h a t the t r i a l court d i d w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 6 5 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . because i t i s s u e d the i n j u n c t i o n w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g King M e t a l t o p o s t a s e c u r i t y b o n d b e f o r e i t i s s u e d t h e November 28, 2012, preliminary injunction. R u l e 65(c) p r o v i d e s : "No r e s t r a i n i n g order or p r e l i m i n a r y injunction s h a l l i s s u e e x c e p t upon t h e g i v i n g o f s e c u r i t y by t h e a p p l i c a n t , i n s u c h sum as t h e c o u r t deems p r o p e r , f o r t h e payment o f s u c h c o s t s , damages, and r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s as may be i n c u r r e d o r s u f f e r e d by any p a r t y who i s f o u n d t o have b e e n wrongfully enjoined or restrained; provided, h o w e v e r , no s u c h s e c u r i t y s h a l l be r e q u i r e d o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a o r o f an o f f i c e r o r a g e n c y t h e r e o f , and p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r , i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , no s u c h s e c u r i t y may be r e q u i r e d i n d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s cases." I n S p i n k s v. A u t o m a t i o n 186, 190 Personnel Services, ( A l a . 2010), t h i s Court I n c . , 49 So. 3d stated: "Also, '"there are [other] necessary e x c e p t i o n s to s u c h an a b s o l u t e h o l d i n g i n a l l c a s e s u n d e r R u l e 6 5 ( c ) , s u c h as r e q u i r i n g o n l y a n o m i n a l s e c u r i t y , o r where t h e l i t i g a n t i s i m p e c u n i o u s o r t h e i s s u e i s one of o v e r r i d i n g p u b l i c concern."' Anders[ v. Fowler], 423 So. 2d [838,] 840 [(Ala. 1982)] ( q u o t i n g L i g h t s e y [ v. K e n s i n g t o n M o r t g . & Fin. C o r p . ] , 294 A l a . [281,] 285, 315 So. 2d [431,] 434 [ ( 1 9 7 5 ) ] , c i t i n g i n t u r n C h a r l e s A. W r i g h t & A r t h u r R. M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e , C i v i l § 2954, p. 5 2 9 ) . " K i n g M e t a l does n o t a r g u e the requirement of a t h a t any security 14 bond of the e x c e p t i o n s t o apply in this case. 1120310; 1120368 I n s t e a d , i t c o n t e n d s t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e O c t o b e r 2, 2012, o r d e r upon w h i c h November 28, clarified require the order, posting of a d i d not merely 2, 2012, a King October 2, bond. Because clarification preliminary p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n , we require which K i n g M e t a l ' s argument t h a t was October 2012, agreed or e n f o r c e d the rejected order the p a r t i e s Metal 2012, a bond, argues order, we and injunction merely d i d not have t h e November already 28, enforcement rather the than 2012, of the a new l i k e w i s e r e j e c t i t s argument that t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h e p o s t i n g o f a security bond. "Alabama l a w ... c l e a r l y p r o v i d e s t h a t ' [ i ] t i s m a n d a t o r y t h a t s e c u r i t y be g i v e n u n d e r R u l e 6 5 ( c ) , " u n l e s s t h e t r i a l c o u r t makes a s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g b a s e d upon c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t one o r more o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s , s t a t i n g them, do e x i s t . " ' Anders[ v. F o w l e r ] , 423 So. 2d [838,] 840 [(Ala. 1982)] ( q u o t i n g L i g h t s e y [ v. K e n s i n g t o n M o r t g . & F i n . C o r p . ] , 294 A l a . [281,] 285, 315 So. 2d [431,] 434 [(1975)]) (emphasis added); see a l s o Chunchula E n e r g y C o r p . v. C i b a - G e i g y C o r p . , 503 So. 2d 1211, 1215 ( A l a . 1987) ( s t a t i n g that the p r o v i s i o n s of R u l e 65(c) a r e 'mandatory'). Furthermore, t h i s C o u r t has l o n g r e c o g n i z e d t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d r u l e . See Ex p a r t e M i l l e r , 129 A l a . 130, 133, 30 So. 611, 612 (1901) (stating that '[t]here can be no injunction ... u n t i l t h e b o n d has b e e n g i v e n ' ) ( q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l i n A n d e r s , 423 So. 2d a t 840, and L i g h t s e y , 294 A l a . a t 284, 315 So. 2d a t 4 3 3 ) . 15 1120310; 1120368 "Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g APS t o g i v e s e c u r i t y as mandated by Rule 65(c), A l a . R. C i v . P. Furthermore, the t r i a l c o u r t f a i l e d t o make 'a s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g b a s e d upon c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t one o r more o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s , s t a t i n g them, do exist.' A n d e r s , 423 So. 2d a t 840. As n o t e d , ' t h e r e c a n be no i n j u n c t i o n ... u n t i l t h e b o n d h a s been g i v e n . ' A n d e r s , 423 So. 2d a t 840 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e M i l l e r , 129 A l a . a t 133, 30 So. a t 612, q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l i n L i g h t s e y , 294 A l a . a t 285, 315 So. 2d a t 4 3 4 ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , ' [ u ] n d e r t h e c l e a r mandate of Rule 6 5 ( c ) , and t h e p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s c o u r t , we have no a l t e r n a t i v e b u t t o r e v e r s e a n d remand.' A n d e r s , 423 So. 2d a t 840; s e e a l s o C h u n c h u l a E n e r g y C o r p . , 503 So. 2d a t 1215-16 ( s t a t i n g t h a t an i n j u n c t i o n i s s u e d w i t h o u t t h e g i v i n g o f s e c u r i t y by t h e a p p l i c a n t ' i s d e f e c t i v e and due t o be r e v e r s e d ' ) . " Spinks, did a 49 So. 3d a t 191. S i m i l a r l y , because the t r i a l not require King Metal specific finding that court t o g i v e s e c u r i t y a n d d i d n o t make any of the exceptions t o the r e q u i r e m e n t o f g i v i n g s e c u r i t y e x i s t e d , i t d i d n o t comply w i t h the requirements of Rule Third, not Civ. the 65(c). the defendants comply w i t h contend that the requirements the t r i a l of Rule court d i d 65(d)(2), A l a . R. P., b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t s e t f o r t h i t s r e a s o n s f o r i s s u i n g i n j u n c t i o n a n d d i d n o t d e s c r i b e t h e a c t s t o be e n j o i n e d . Rule 65(d)(2) provides, i n relevant part: " E v e r y o r d e r g r a n t i n g an i n j u n c t i o n s h a l l s e t f o r t h t h e r e a s o n s f o r i t s i s s u a n c e ; s h a l l be s p e c i f i c i n 16 1120310; 1120368 terms; s h a l l d e s c r i b e i n r e a s o n a b l e d e t a i l , and n o t by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e c o m p l a i n t o r o t h e r document, t h e a c t o r a c t s s o u g h t t o be r e s t r a i n e d " In t h i s case, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r does n o t c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 6 5 ( d ) ( 2 ) . set forth any r e a s o n s i n j u n c t i o n order. 2005). The t r i a l f o r the issuance court d i d not of the p r e l i m i n a r y - See B u t l e r v. Roome, 907 So. 2d 432 ( A l a . In f a c t , t h e o r d e r made no r e f e r e n c e t o whether M e t a l had demonstrated t h e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n H o l i d a y supra, necessary Also, the t r i a l to t o the issuance motion i n support by Rule Isle, of a preliminary i n j u n c t i o n . court d i d not describe the a c t or acts be r e s t r a i n e d . King A t most, i t m e r e l y r e f e r e n c e d K i n g sought Metal's of the order, which i s e x p r e s s l y p r o h i b i t e d 65(2)(d). "Pursuant t o Rule 65[(d)(2)], i ti s mandatory t h a t a p r e l i m i n a r y - i n j u n c t i o n order g i v e reasons f o r the issuance of the i n j u n c t i o n , that terms, and t h a t i t d e s c r i b e i n reasonable a c t s s o u g h t t o be r e s t r a i n e d . " Kratos (Ala. Defense 2012). i t be s p e c i f i c detail the a c t or Monte Sano R e s e a r c h C o r p . v. & Sec. S o l u t i o n s , I n c . , 99 So. 3d 855, 863 See a l s o D.M.C. E n t e r s . , I n c . v . Hope, 100 So. 3d 1102, 1108 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ( n o t i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e court's one-sentence order granting 17 inits Hope's trial motion [ f o r 1120310; 1120368 injunctive relief] information"). reasons not contain Because the t r i a l any of the required court d i d not s e t f o r t h i t s f o r i s s u i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n and d i d n o t d e s c r i b e a c t s t o be e n j o i n e d did does i n t h e November 28, 2012, o r d e r , n o t comply w i t h Rule the i t s order 65(d)(2). Conclusion F o r t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d r e a s o n s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l court's November injunction the rather 28, 2012, order was than a c l a r i f i c a t i o n a new preliminary o r an e n f o r c e m e n t o f O c t o b e r 2, 2012, p r e l i m i n a r y - i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r . conclude discretion that the t r i a l i n issuing court exceeded t h e November 28, We t h e scope 2012, also of i t s preliminary i n j u n c t i o n because i t d i d n o t comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 65, A l a . R. C i v . P., when i t e n t e r e d the order. Therefore, November 28, 2012, i n s t r u c t i o n s that the t r i a l court reverse the t r i a l a n d remand t h i s order we case w i t h dissolve the preliminary court's injunction i t issued on In t h i s regard, we n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l court was a p p a r e n t l y aware o f t h e f a c t t h a t i t h a d n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h R u l e 65 when i t i s s u e d t h e November 28, 2012, p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n order. D u r i n g t h e December 17, 2012, h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n t o d i s s o l v e t h e November 28, 2012, p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n order, the t r i a l court admitted that i t f r e q u e n t l y i s s u e s i n j u n c t i o n s " t h a t d o n ' t c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 65 b e c a u s e o f the immediacy and t h e need." 6 18 6 1120310; 1120368 November 28, 2 0 1 2 . interpreted necessary, preliminary complies However, as p r e c l u d i n g from asking this King Metal, the t r i a l i n j u n c t i o n , provided decision should court that should i t deem i t t o again any such n o t be issue injunction w i t h R u l e 65, A l a . R. C i v . P. 1120310 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. 11203 68 -- REVERSED AND REMANDED. Moore, C . J . , a n d S t u a r t a n d P a r k e r , Shaw, J . , J J . , concur. concurs i n p a r t and concurs i n t h e r e s u l t . 19 a 1120310; SHAW, 1120368 Justice (concurring i n part and concurring i n the result). I concur discussion 65(d)(2), i n t h e main that addresses opinion the l a c k except part of compliance A l a . R. C i v . P., as t o w h i c h 20 that of the with I e x p r e s s no Rule opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
