Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a Superior Court justice improperly granted injunctive relief against defendant Edmund Kittredge without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard. Applying Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure 65(a)(1), 7(b)(1), and 6(c), the court concluded that Kittredge was entitled to at least ten days' written notice before consideration of the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. The court sustained Kittredge's appeal and vacated the portion of the order affecting his property.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court could grant mandatory preliminary injunctive relief against Kittredge without giving him notice of the motion or an opportunity to be heard.
- Whether Kittredge was entitled to at least ten days' written notice of the Tuckers' oral request for injunctive relief under the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.
Holdings
- A preliminary injunction, including mandatory injunctive relief equivalent to a preliminary injunction, may not be issued against an adverse party without notice sufficient to provide an opportunity to prepare and present an opposition.
- Because the oral request for injunctive relief was an application for a court order and was not an ex parte motion, Kittredge was entitled to at least ten days' written notice before the hearing.
Key quotations
“"No preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party."” (795 A.2d at 1118)
“"Because a preliminary injunction is unlimited in duration, its entry always requires notice to the opposing party sufficient to give that party an opportunity to prepare an opposition to entry of an injunction."” (795 A.2d at 1118)
“Our rules provide that Kittredge was entitled to at least ten days written notice of the Tuckers' request for injunctive relief so he would have had sufficient time to prepare and present any objection that he may have had to the plaintiffs' motion.” (795 A.2d at 1119)
Factual background
The dispute concerned an unnamed roadway in South Kingstown that crossed the parties' properties and allegedly provided access to landlocked parcels. The Tuckers claimed the roadway was public or that they had acquired a prescriptive easement, while the defendants placed boulders across portions of it. After the Tuckers erected their own barricade, Lewis and Jordan sought an emergency preliminary injunction, but Kittredge neither joined the motion nor appeared at the hearing because his property was not adversely affected by the Lewis-Jordan request. The motion justice nevertheless ordered removal of obstructions on Kittredge's property and barred him from erecting new ones.
Procedural history
The Tuckers filed a Superior Court action seeking to establish a public right of way or, alternatively, a prescriptive easement, and to enjoin obstructions to access. Lewis and Jordan later sought an emergency counterclaim and preliminary injunction after the Tuckers erected a barricade. At the hearing on those motions, the motion justice granted relief against the Tuckers and, in response to an oral request, also ordered removal of obstructions affecting the Lewis property and Kittredge's property, despite Kittredge's absence and lack of notice. Kittredge alone appealed.
Remand instructions
The portion of the Superior Court order requiring Kittredge to remove obstructions from the disputed roadway on his property and enjoining him from erecting new obstructions was vacated. The papers were remanded to the Superior Court.