447 P.3d 341
Ariz. Ct. App.2019Background
- Apache Produce Imports sued Malena Produce (after Malena contracted with IGP) for tortious interference and unjust enrichment and sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to stop Malena from receiving/distributing IGP produce.
- Malena moved to stay the Arizona action pending related litigation concerning IGP; the trial court granted the stay without addressing Apache’s pending preliminary injunction motion.
- The trial court justified the stay to avoid piecemeal litigation, repeated suits, difficult foreign-law questions, and conflicting judgments.
- Apache appealed, arguing the stay effectively denied its request for speedy preliminary injunctive relief and that the court therefore refused an injunction within the meaning of A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b).
- The appellate court concluded the grant of stay functionally denied the preliminary injunction because it indefinitely postponed any possibility of speedy relief, and thus appellate jurisdiction existed to review the order.
- The appellate court vacated the stay and remanded for the trial court to consider Apache’s preliminary injunction under the proper four-factor standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over a stay that effectively denies a preliminary injunction | The stay that precluded consideration of the pending motion is effectively a refusal to grant an injunction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) | The stay did not refuse the injunction because the trial court could address the injunction after related litigation concluded | Court held jurisdiction exists: a stay that effectively denies speedy injunctive relief is reviewable as a refusal to grant an injunction |
| Whether a trial court may grant a stay without considering a pending preliminary injunction motion | Apache: No — issuing a stay in place of considering the injunction effectively denies speedy relief and is improper | Malena: Yes — stay is justified to avoid piecemeal litigation and conflicting judgments and the injunction can be addressed later | Court held the trial court abused its discretion by granting a stay without applying the preliminary injunction factors; vacated the stay and remanded for proper consideration |
| Standard to apply when a stay and preliminary injunction request conflict | Apache: Trial court must apply the preliminary injunction four-factor (or serious-questions/balance) test before deferring relief | Malena: Stay factors suffice to justify delaying injunction consideration | Court held stay factors differ from injunction factors and are insufficient to replace the preliminary-injunction analysis; court must consider injunction factors before denying speedy relief |
| Remedy for improper stay that effectively denied injunction | Apache: Vacate stay and remand for injunction consideration | Malena: Affirm stay | Court vacated the stay and remanded for the trial court to consider the preliminary injunction on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 549 F.3d 842 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stay that refuses to consider a preliminary-injunction motion may be treated as an appealable refusal to grant an injunction)
- Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (preliminary injunction exists to provide speedy relief from irreparable injury)
- Privitera v. Cal. Bd. of Med. Quality Assurance, 926 F.2d 890 (9th Cir. 1991) (denial of a preliminary injunction and related stay should be considered together on appeal)
- Transp. Workers Union, Local 502 v. Tucson Airport Auth., Inc., 11 Ariz. App. 296, 464 P.2d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970) (appealable under injunction-jurisdiction where order dissolved TRO and effectively denied preliminary injunction)
- Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (Arizona preliminary injunction factors)
- Tonnemacher v. Touche Ross & Co., 186 Ariz. 125 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996) (factors appropriate to evaluate a stay)