99 So. 3d 74
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Yokom lives near busy Bourbon Street; Pat O’Brien’s Bar is nearby and noise impacts Yokum’s residence.
- Yokom filed suit alleging violations of city noise ordinance and state noise statutes; a preliminary injunction was issued against Pat O’Brien’s.
- Bond for the injunction was set at $5,000, which Yokum posted.
- Pat O’Brien’s appealed on grounds of irreparable harm, evidentiary ruling, and bond adequacy.
- The court held irreparable harm not required for prohibitory injunctive relief, affirmed the injunction, and addressed bond and evidence issues.
- The court explained the irreparable-harm exception and the need for prima facie showing to obtain a permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether irreparable harm is required for prohibitory injunctions. | Yokom seeks prohibitory relief exempt from irreparable-harm rule. | O’Brien’s argues irreparable harm is required. | Irreparable harm not required for prohibitory injunctive relief. |
| Whether the injunction violated due process by shifting burden to Pat O’Brien’s. | Plaintiffs show violation of prohibitory law suffices. | Injunction imposes restraint; no shift in burden needed. | Proper burden framework under Jurisich exception. |
| Whether the district court properly excluded live testimony due to lack of proffer. | Expert testimony should be admitted to challenge evidence. | Exclusion stands because no proffer was made. | No abuse of discretion since no proffer in record. |
| Whether bond amount of $5,000 was adequate. | Bond insufficient to cover anticipated expert costs and contempt defenses. | Bond reflects indemnity for costs; testing not required by injunction. | No abuse; bond amount appropriate. |
| Whether the district court properly found a prima facie case for permanent injunction. | Evidence shows continued past violations and likelihood of future violations. | Countervailing evidence undermines reliability of measurements. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; prima facie showing established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jurisich v. Jenkins, 749 So.2d 597 (La. 1999) (irreparable harm exception for prohibitory injunctions)
- South Cent. Bell Tel Co. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 555 So.2d 1370 (La. 1990) (prohibitory injunction principle under lawful conduct)
- Cajun Elec. Power Co-op., Inc. v. Triton Coal Co., 590 So.2d 813 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1991) (broad discretion standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Mary Moe, L.L.G. v. Louisiana Bd. of Ethics, 875 So.2d 22 (La. 2004) (burden and standards for prima facie showing)
- Concerned Citizens for Proper Planning, LLC v. Parish of Tangipahoa, 906 So.2d 660 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2005) (distinguishes prohibitory vs. mandatory injunctions)
- Historic Restoration, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co., 955 So.2d 200 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2007) (evidence sufficiency in injunction context)
- Duncan v. Bartholomew, 88 So.3d 698 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2012) (trial court’s evidentiary evaluations within discretion)
- Munch v. Backer, 63 So.3d 181 (La.App. 4th Cir. 2011) (guidance on evidentiary rulings on appeal)