Preliminary Injunction – Mootness

Cochran v. CIS Financial Services, Inc., [Ms. 1210060, Oct. 28, 2022] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2022). The Court (Bryan, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur) dismisses as moot Alicia Cochran’s appeal from a preliminary injunction. The Court explains that the Marion Circuit Court’s order explicitly states that "‘Cochran is preliminarily restrained and enjoined for one year, beginning August 31, 2021….’ Consequently, it is clear that, by its own terms, the preliminary injunction expired after August 31, 2022. Under the reasoning of Rogers [v. Burch Corp., 313 So. 3d 555 (Ala. 2020)], it appears that Cochran’s appeal is now moot.” Ms. *10.

The Court rejects Cochran’s argument that the movant’s potential liability on the injunction bond was properly before it and holds

Under the procedure set out in Ex parte Waterjet Systems[, Inc., 758 So. 2d 505 (Ala. 1999)], the issue of the movant’s potential liability under an injunction bond for an allegedly wrongfully granted preliminary injunction should be litigated in, and first decided by, the trial court. To the extent that the pertinent reasoning from this Court’s decisions in International Molders [& Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Aliceville Veneers Division, Buchanan Lumber Birmingham, 348 So. 2d 1385 (Ala. 1977)] and Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. [v. City of Montgomery, 193 Ala. 234, 69 So. 428, (1915)] conflicts with our holding in this regard, those parts of those decisions are hereby overruled.

Ms. *27.

Related Documents