Details of a Hearing for Preliminary Injunction

Details of a Hearing for Preliminary Injunction

Thea arguments for hearing on a plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction can resemble a trial or a mini-trial, but this early stage of the proceeding is not a trial on the merits. The sole purpose for entry of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final hearing or trial on the merits of the entire case. Status quo is generally the last uncontested point in time before the controversy between the parties arose.

If the proceeding occurs without notice to the defendant as we discuss here, the court will hear legal argument from the plaintiff concerning whether the plaintiff’s verified complaint and any accompanying affidavits satisfy the required elements for a preliminary injunction, which we discuss here.

If the proceeding occurs with notice to the defendant, and the defendant has filed a verified response to oppose the request for injunction, and the court determines the response creates issues of material fact, then the court should hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve those disputed factual issues. If the defendant does not respond, then all of the plaintiff’s allegations are deemed admitted and the court can issue the preliminary injunction based on the plaintiffs’ verified complaint and any accompanying papers.

If the court does hold an evidentiary hearing to determine if the plaintiff’s verified complaint and any accompanying affidavits do satisfy the required elements for a preliminary injunction, the record that the parties must develop for this purpose is unlike if there were a full hearing or trial on the merits in the case of a regular lawsuit that has already been litigated with discovery already conducted.

If the court decides to issue a preliminary injunction, the order itself must be narrowly tailored to preserve the status quo, so it does not resolve contested issues to be determined later in the lawsuit after the injunction issues, and so the relief granted in the injunction is no broader or more extensive than the ultimate relief sought by plaintiff in the main complaint.

The preliminary injunction document should include the court’s findings as to why the court determined that the plaintiff satisfied each of the elements necessary for preliminary injunctive relief. The injunction order should specifically state the conduct either to be restrained or required, the date and time of the injunction is considered to be issued and effective, and whether the injunction was issued with or without notice to the defendants, and if without notice, the court's reasons for doing so. Our discussion of the specific analysis and statutory elements which the court will conduct to determine whether to issue the preliminary injunction is here. The statutory requirements are found in 735 ILCS 5/11-101, for temporary restraining orders, and 5/11-102 for preliminary injunctions.

The emergency and injunctive relief attorneys at Lubin Austermuehle have over thirty years of experience defending and prosecuting injunction claims in the federal and state Chancery courts in Illinois in a wide variety of business dispute lawsuits. We are knowledgeable regarding the changes and complexities of injunction law and prepared to devote substantial time to the matter on an emergency basis. We are committed to fighting for our clients' rights in injunction and emergency business relief cases at both the trial and appellate court levels. We have successfully defended or prosecuted scores of injunctions and then won on appeal in the expedited appeals that often follow injunction decisions. Conveniently located in Chicago and Elmhurst, Illinois, we have successfully litigated business separation, accounting and breach of fiduciary duty case for clients all over the Chicago area. To schedule a consultation with one of our skilled attorneys, you can contact us online or give us a call on our toll-free number at (833) 306-4933 or locally at (630) 333-0333.

Client Reviews
★★★★★
I was referred to Peter Lubin from someone in the car business to handle a law suit. From the moment I made the appointment Peter and his staff were outstanding. This wasn't an easy case, most lawyers had turned me down. However, Peter took the time to meet with me and review everything. He took on the case, and constantly communicated with me about updates and case information. We beat this non-compete agreement case in record time. I would use him again and recommend him to my closest family and friends. 5 stars is not enough to thank him for his service. Sebastian R.
★★★★★
I worked on two occasions with Peter Lubin and his staff. They took their time with me and discussed each and every item in detail. The group makes you feel like you are part of the family and not just another hourly charge. I recommend Peter to anyone who asks me for a referral. If you are looking for a top notch attorney at a reasonable rate, look no further than Lubin Austermuehle. Kurt A.
★★★★★
Excellent law firm. My case was a complicated arbitration dispute from another state. Was handled with utmost professionalism and decency. Mr. Peter Lubin was able to successfully resolve the case on my behalf and got me a very favorable settlement. Would recommend to anyone looking for a serious law firm. Great staff and great lawyers! Albey L.
★★★★★
I have known Peter Lubin for over 30 years. He has represented me on occasion with sound legal advice. He is a shrewd and tough negotiator leading to positive outcomes and averting prolonged legal hassles in court. He comes from a family with a legal pedigree and deep roots in Chicago's top legal community. You want him on your case. You need him on your opponents case. He won't stop fighting until he wins. Christopher G.