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 assist producing a live album recorded at a September 16, 2017 concert in New Orleans.
- Meredith claims Singleton missed rehearsal and was late to the concert, so she engaged a sound engineer and retained background singers; she later delivered the original Pro Tools HD session files to Singleton for production.
- Meredith sued (March 28, 2018) for breach of contract, damages, and sought a preliminary mandatory injunction ordering Appellants to turn over the Pro Tools HD session files for 16 songs, plus a permanent injunction recognizing her ownership.
- The trial court set a preliminary-injunction hearing on the verified petition (no affidavits were filed). Appellants’ counsel did not appear; Singleton (non‑lawyer) testified; Meredith relied on her verified petition and did not testify live.
- On May 31, 2018 the trial court granted a preliminary injunction requiring Appellants to deliver the files and set security at $1,000; Appellants appealed, arguing the court erred in issuing a mandatory injunction without a full evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the preliminary injunction ordered production of files is prohibitory or mandatory | Meredith sought immediate turnover of Pro Tools session files and relied on verified petition to prove entitlement | Appellants argued the injunction was mandatory and required a full evidentiary hearing | Court held the order was a mandatory injunction (commands an act) |
| Standard/procedure required to obtain the injunction | Meredith effectively argued the verified petition sufficed to support issuance | Appellants argued a mandatory injunction requires a preponderance of evidence at a full evidentiary hearing with live testimony | Court held mandatory injunctions require a preponderance of evidence at an evidentiary hearing; verified petition alone is insufficient |
| Whether the trial court erred in issuing the injunction without affidavits/live evidence | Meredith relied on her verified petition and the scheduled hearing under La. C.C.P. 3609 | Appellants contended absence of affidavits and live evidence violated procedural requirements for a mandatory injunction | Court held the trial court erred as a matter of law by granting the mandatory injunction without a full evidentiary hearing |
| Remedy on appeal | Meredith sought enforcement of the injunction and turnover | Appellants sought reversal and remand for proper hearing | Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the request for a mandatory injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Denta-Max v. Maxicare Louisiana, Inc., 671 So.2d 995 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1996) (distinguishes prohibitory vs. mandatory injunctions and required showing)
- Bollinger Mach. Shop & Shipyard, Inc. v. U.S. Marine, Inc., 595 So.2d 756 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992) (mandatory preliminary injunction requires preponderance of evidence at hearing)
- Faubourg Marigny Improvement Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 195 So.3d 606 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (preliminary injunction preserves status quo; verified petition has evidentiary effect for prohibitory injunctions)
- Kern v. Kern, 85 So.3d 778 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (definition and distinction between prohibitory and mandatory injunctions)
- Constr. Diva, L.L.C. v. New Orleans Aviation Bd., 206 So.3d 1029 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2016) (clarifies injunctive relief that commands action is mandatory)