364 So.3d 358
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Jenna Ard and Christine Johnson ran GrrlSpot events from ~2010; their personal relationship ended in 2017 and disputes arose over access to accounts and control.
- Ard sued Johnson (alleging an oral/written partnership, conversion, fraud) and obtained a First City Court TRO in July 2017; a July 2017 consent judgment allowed Johnson to continue operating GrrlSpot while providing monthly accountings.
- Ard moved for a preliminary injunction in Civil District Court (Nov. 2018), supporting it with a notarized written partnership agreement; the court granted a preliminary injunction on verified pleadings but did not fix the bond/security at that time.
- Ard moved to amend to permit her to post bond; the district court held a hearing (Dec. 18–19, 2018), denied Johnson’s motion to dissolve, granted Ard’s motion to amend, and issued an amended preliminary injunction conditioned on Ard posting a $1,000 bond.
- Johnson appealed and sought supervisory review, arguing the original injunction was void for lack of security and that the injunction was a mandatory order changing the status quo. Ard moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely.
- The appellate court denied Ard’s motion to dismiss, affirmed the court’s authority to amend/fix security, but held the amended injunction was mandatory and altered the status quo; it vacated the injunction and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Ard: Johnson failed to appeal the original Nov. 27 order within 15 days; appeal untimely. | Johnson: The injunction effectively issued only after the amended Dec. 19 order fixing security, so appeal from Dec. 19 is timely. | Appeal was timely from Dec. 19 issuance (when security was fixed/posted); motion to dismiss denied. |
| Authority to amend/fix security on injunction issued without bond | Ard: Court could amend to allow her to furnish security and thereby validate the injunction. | Johnson: An injunction issued without a bond is void ab initio and cannot be cured by amendment. | Circuit law permits either vacatur or remand to fix security depending on facts; district court acted within its authority to amend and set security. |
| Nature of injunction — prohibitory vs mandatory; change of status quo | Ard: Relief was prohibitory to preserve status quo and supported by notarized agreement (prima facie). | Johnson: Injunction ordered active transfer of operational control and exclusive access — a mandatory order that changes status quo. | The injunction effectively granted Ard operational control and exclusive access (mandatory), and thus required a preponderance-of-the-evidence showing at an evidentiary hearing; injunction vacated and remanded for full evidentiary hearing. |
| Other alleged defects (detail, adequacy of security, attorneys' fees) | Ard: Orders were sufficiently detailed and security fixed at $1,000; no basis for fees. | Johnson: Injunction lacked reasonable detail, security insufficient, and she sought fees for motion to dissolve. | Appellate court pretermitted further review of those claims pending the required evidentiary hearing; underlying injunction vacated and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cochran v. Crosby, 411 So.2d 654 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1982) (older rule treating injunctions issued without bond as invalid).
- Liberty Bank & Trust Co. v. Dapremont, 803 So.2d 387 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (remand to set bond can be an appropriate remedy instead of vacatur).
- Yokum v. Van Calsem, 935 So.2d 736 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (court may require security on appeal where injunction facts justify relief).
- Hyman v. Puckett, 193 So.3d 1184 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (mandatory injunctions that alter rights/status quo require an evidentiary hearing and preponderance showing).
- Bayou Hunting Club v. Desoto Parish Jury, 569 So.2d 252 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1990) (appeal timing tied to date injunction effectively issued; distinguished on facts).
- Meredith v. I Am Music, LLC, 265 So.3d 1143 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2019) (explaining different proof burdens for prohibitory vs mandatory injunctions).