265 So. 3d 1143
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Meredith (performing as "Deepa Soul") alleged a June 2016 contract with I Am Music, LLC and Amos Singleton to provide services and assist producing a live album recorded Sept. 16, 2017 at the Carver Theater.
- Meredith claims Singleton missed rehearsal and the concert, she retained a sound engineer, delivered original Pro Tools HD session files to Singleton for production, and Singleton later repudiated the contract and demanded payment.
- Meredith sued for breach of contract, damages, and sought a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering delivery of Pro Tools HD session files for 16 songs (including background vocals).
- The trial court set an injunction hearing to proceed on verified pleadings/affidavits; neither party filed affidavits, Meredith relied on her verified petition, Defendants’ counsel did not appear, and Singleton (non‑attorney) testified for defendants.
- The trial court granted a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering turnover of the files and required Meredith to post $1,000 security; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could grant a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering turnover of files based on verified petition without full evidentiary hearing | Meredith argued she was entitled to immediate turnover and relied on her verified petition as evidence | Defendants argued procedural/evidentiary inadequacy for a mandatory injunction (implicit in appeal) | The injunction was mandatory; the court erred as a matter of law by issuing it without a full evidentiary hearing and proof by a preponderance of the evidence — reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing |
| Proper standard/procedure for preliminary injunction (prohibitory vs mandatory) | Meredith treated petition as sufficient to obtain injunction | Defendants contended process required more for mandatory relief | Court held mandatory injunctions require an evidentiary hearing with live evidence and preponderance proof; verified petition suffices only for prohibitory injunctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Rand v. City of New Orleans, 125 So.3d 476 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for preliminary injunction is abuse of discretion)
- Denta-Max v. Maxicare Louisiana, Inc., 671 So.2d 995 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1996) (distinguishes prohibitory and mandatory injunctions; mandatory injunctions require preponderance at evidentiary hearing)
- Bollinger Mach. Shop & Shipyard, Inc. v. U.S. Marine, Inc., 595 So.2d 756 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1992) (same evidentiary requirement for mandatory preliminary injunctions)
- Faubourg Marigny Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 195 So.3d 606 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2016) (verified pleadings have evidentiary effect for prohibitory injunctions only)
- Kern v. Kern, 85 So.3d 778 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2012) (definition/contrast of prohibitory vs. mandatory injunctions)
- I.F. v. Admin. of Tulane Educ. Fund, 72 So.3d 462 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2011) (mandatory injunction requires live evidence and stipulations at hearing)