Easterling v. Estate of Miller, 184 So. 3d 222

Plaintiffs N.M. Easterling and Food Art, Inc. have occupied 801 Carondelet St. under a series of leases beginning with a 1991 commercial lease (with options to extend) and a 1998 lease followed by extensions through 2026.
Property co-owners/lessors are Marion Gardiner Miller’s estate and Marion Sullivan Schreiner; roof leaks and vegetation intrusion plagued the building for years and were the source of repeated disputes about repair responsibility.
Defendants issued notices to vacate in July 2014 and filed a reconventional demand seeking eviction for alleged failure to make repairs; Plaintiffs sued for breach of lease and sought injunctive relief to stop eviction and preserve possession.
The trial court held a preliminary-injunction hearing and, on October 8, 2014, granted Plaintiffs a preliminary injunction preserving Plaintiffs’ possession and access and preventing defendants from rejecting rent or otherwise interfering with possession pending further order.
Defendants appealed, arguing (1) the injunction wrongly prevented them from filing or pursuing an eviction and (2) Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm.
The court affirmed: the injunction preserved the status quo (did not bar filing or prosecution of eviction claims) and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a prima facie showing of irreparable harm (risk to business reputation and multiple breached contracts).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the preliminary injunction was legal error because it prevented Defendants from filing/pursuing eviction	Plaintiffs argued injunction properly preserved the status quo and did not bar prosecution of eviction claims	Defendants argued injunction impermissibly prevented them from instituting or following through with eviction (injunction cannot bar the filing of a suit)	Court held no legal error: injunction preserved status quo, did not prohibit filing/prosecution and anticipated eviction procedures pending judgment
Whether Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of irreparable harm to justify a preliminary injunction	Easterling/Food Art argued eviction would force failure to perform multiple contracts, destroy business reputation and goodwill, and relocation costs exceed monetary remedy	Defendants argued harms are measurable in money (e.g., $700,000 relocation cost), so not irreparable	Court held plaintiffs made prima facie showing: cumulative loss of contracts and irreparable harm to reputation justified injunction

Smith v. Brumfield, 133 So.3d 70 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (standards for reviewing preliminary injunctions; abuse of discretion framework)
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels, 377 So.2d 346 (La. 1979) (factors for preliminary injunction: irreparable injury and likelihood of success)
Historic Restoration, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co., 955 So.2d 200 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (multiplicity of contract breaches and loss of reputation can constitute irreparable injury)
Levee Construction Co. v. Equitable Casualty & Surety Co. of New York, 138 So. 431 (La. 1931) (injunction will not lie to prevent the bringing of a suit)