ConAgra Foods v. Zimmerman
288 Neb. 81
| Neb. | 2014Background
- On Nov. 10, 2012, an unknown white male drove onto ConAgra’s Omaha campus and fired five shots at two window washers; the shooters later identified Ryan J. Zimmerman from media photos and he was arrested Nov. 13, 2012.
- Zimmerman’s estranged wife is a ConAgra manager and had previously obtained protection orders against him; ConAgra alleged Zimmerman had harassed her and violated at least one protection order by coming onto her workplace.
- ConAgra sued for injunctive relief (temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and a 1-year permanent injunction) and served a “bar and ban” letter; a TRO issued, but the district court later dissolved it and denied a permanent injunction.
- At the injunction hearing ConAgra offered 21 exhibits; the district court excluded several exhibits (protection-order paperwork and JUSTICE system records) as irrelevant but admitted affidavits identifying Zimmerman as the shooter and other materials.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo, found the excluded exhibits were relevant (showing prior protection orders, pending charges, release on bond), and concluded ConAgra proved by a preponderance that Zimmerman was likely to repeat trespasses and that remedies at law were inadequate.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to enter a 1-year permanent injunction against Zimmerman; one justice dissented, arguing the record showed only a single completed trespass and that equity should not enjoin criminal conduct when criminal prosecution is an adequate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ConAgra) | Defendant's Argument (Zimmerman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluded exhibits (protection orders, JUSTICE records) were relevant | Exhibits show prior protection orders, pending criminal charges, and Zimmerman was out on bond — relevant to likelihood of repeat trespass | Objections: exhibits irrelevant to ConAgra’s entitlement to an injunction | Court: exclusion was an abuse of discretion; exhibits were relevant and should have been considered |
| Whether a single violent trespass can support injunctive relief | Shooting plus wife’s workplace connection and prior harassment show a flagrant course and high likelihood of repeat trespass — injunctive relief warranted | Single incident; equity traditionally rejects injunctions for single or past trespasses and should defer to criminal prosecution | Court: although criminal law is normally adequate, facts show likely repetition and flagrant violation of law — injunction appropriate |
| Whether remedies at law (criminal prosecution) were adequate | Criminal prosecution alone is inadequate because Zimmerman was released on bond and is likely to repeat trespass causing irreparable harm | Criminal process is sufficient; equity should not be used to enforce criminal law | Court: remedies at law inadequate here; risk of repetition and irreparable harm justify injunction |
| Scope and duration of injunction | 1-year ban from ConAgra property and contact with ConAgra/employees necessary to protect property and employees | Injunction would improperly punish or restrain future criminal activity and exceed equity’s role; statute/legislature is proper forum | Court: remand with directions to enter a 1-year permanent injunction (preventive/prohibitory) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Sheen, 82 Neb. 472, 118 N.W. 125 (Neb. 1908) (longstanding rule that single trespass generally does not warrant injunction)
- Whipps Land & Cattle Co. v. Level 3 Communications, 265 Neb. 472, 658 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. 2003) (injunction denied where record lacked basis to conclude future trespasses likely)
- State ex rel. City of Alma v. Furnas Cty. Farms, 266 Neb. 558, 667 N.W.2d 512 (Neb. 2003) (equity decided case-by-case; injunction is extraordinary remedy)
- Lambert v. Holmberg, 271 Neb. 443, 712 N.W.2d 268 (Neb. 2006) (standards for injunction; equity is preventive and extraordinary)
- Riha v. FirsTier Bank, 248 Neb. 785, 539 N.W.2d 632 (Neb. 1995) (equitable relief may issue where there is a continuing and flagrant course of violations)
- State ex rel. Dobbs v. Burche, 729 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 2007) (injunctive relief appropriate where repeated sexual/harassing conduct posed ongoing threat)