On occasion, a plaintiff in litigation needs to stop the defendant from continuing to commit improper acts that harm the plaintiff. In order to stop or enjoin the defendant, the plaintiff must get the Judge’s immediate attention to demand that the defendant’s actions be immediately stopped.
To determine whether injunctive relief should be issued, Ohio courts consider the following criteria:
(1) whether there is a substantial likelihood plaintiff will prevail in the merits;
(2) whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted;
(3) whether third parties will be unjustifiably harmed if the injunction is granted; and
(4) whether the public interest will be served by the injunction.
Of the four criteria, a great deal of the argument typically focuses on the question of whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm. Monetary damage alone will not typically meet this requirement. The plaintiff must be in a position to argue that if the defendant is not immediately stopped, the plaintiff will be harmed to the extent that plaintiff cannot be made whole at a later date. Injunctions are labor intensive and occasionally expensive but, under the right circumstances, they may be the only remedy available to save a party from catastrophic, continuing damages.
Tim Warner serves as Chairman of the Cavitch’s Litigation Group. He has successfully litigated a number of cases addressing injunctive relief claims and regularly consults with clients regarding related issues.