Injunctive Relief – Due Process

JT Construction, LLC v. MW Industrial Services, Inc., [Ms. 1200066, Aug. 20, 2021] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2021). The Court (Shaw, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bryan, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur) reverses the Walker Circuit Court’s order granting permanent injunctive relief requiring JT Construction Company (JTC) to remove a mechanic’s lien it had filed. JTC argued that hearing the merits of the request for a permanent injunction at the hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction deprived JTC of due process. The Court first explains “[b]ecause the determinative issue on appeal concerns a question of law related to the trial court’s entry of permanent injunctive relief, we review that judgment de novo. Holiday Isle, LLC v. Adkins, 12 So. 3d 1173, 1176 (Ala. 2008).” Ms. *15.

The Court holds that “[u]nder the present circumstances, JTC received inadequate notice of the consolidation of the preliminary-injunction hearing with a final hearing on the merits. Cf. Funliner of Alabama, L.L.C. v. Pickard, 873 So. 2d 198, 219 (Ala. 2003) (“‘Notice to the adverse party before a preliminary injunction is issued is mandatory, pursuant to Rule 65(a), Ala. R. Civ. P.’” Ms. *21. The Court concludes that JTC demonstrated prejudice because “JTC timely demanded a jury trial. The trial court’s premature consolidation and decision on the merits, however, deprived JTC of that right in contravention of Rule 65(a)(2), which permits consolidation but ‘save[s] the parties[’] ... rights ... to trial by jury.’” Ms. *25.

Related Documents