Injunction Denied Posts
Category: Injunction Denied
Posted by: admin
(Subtitle: What You Won't Be Reading on the Hermitage Official Website or eMewsletter)
The hearing yesterday was simply amazing, I could not have asked for anything better if I had written it myself.
This is the result from just the hearing for the preliminary injunction, where the shelter was trying to muzzle me until there can be an actual trial. I am therefore permitted by the court to continue blogging. I will also publish the hearing transcripts as soon as they are available. Below is the text of the order, I will put a link to a pdf copy as soon as I can get one that is easier to read. I have removed the attorney's names at the bottom, and the admininstrative assistant's name, which appear on each of the four pages.
(The counter-claim was not dealt with at the hearing, that comes later. That is a claim by me against both the Board and Mary Jo Spring personally for publicly calling me a terrorist).
======================================================
ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY
JUDGE: HON. MICHAEL MILLER CASE NO. C20091025
COURT REPORTER: NONE DATE: June 24, 2009
THE HERMITAGE CAT SHELTER, INC, an
Arizona non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSALIE TORSKE and JOHN DOE TORSKE, et
al.,
Defendants.
MARY KATHERINE HECK,
Counter-Claimant,
v.
THE HERMITAGE CAT SHELTER, INC., an
Arizona non-profit corporation,
Counter-Defendant.
MARY KATHERINE HECK,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
MARY JO SPRING, JOHN DOES 1-5,
Third-Party Defandants
ORDER
Plaintiff The Hermitage Cat Shelter, Inc. moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant Mary ("Katy") Heck from disseminating confidential information, interfering with Plaintiff's business relations, or communicating with Plaintiff's donors. Defendant Heck opposes the application for preliminary injunction. The Court conducted an extended evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's application that included numerous enhibits, as well as party and non-party testimony.
The criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are: 1) the strong likelihood of success on the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if relief is not granted, 3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and 4) advancement of the public interest. LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482,56 P.3d 56 (App.2002). Whether an injunction should issue is a matter commited to the trial court's discretion, which will be disturbed generally only for abuse of discretion. Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363,982 P.2d 1277 (1999). The Court is required to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision. Ariz. R.Civ.P., Rule 52(a).
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The Court finds and concludes as follows:
1. Plaintiff the Hermitage Cat Shelter, Inc. is a non-profit corporation doing business as a cat shelter in Tucson, Arizona.
2. Defendant Heck was an employee of Plaintiff, but left in 2007.
3. Plaintiff has been the subject of unfavorable information from a variety of sources for at least the past year. The sources include prior employees, volunteers, and Board members. The unfavorable information includes criticisms of personnel practices, fundraising, expenditures, cleaning practices, and disclosure of information.
4. As a non-profit corporation that relies upon unpaid volunteers and donors, information about the activities and goals of the organization is made available in a variety of contexts.
5. The testimony among the witnesses frequently conflicted as it pertained to who had information, when they had information, the accuracy of the information, and whether the information was public or private. Additionally, there was testimony from which a finder of fact could conclude that information was obtained and disclosed by persons who are neither parties nor witnesses.
6. It is not clear that the Employment Manual supports the post-employment restrictions that Plaintiff infers from it.
7. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not proven a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
9. The unfavorable information may be causing harm to Plaintiff. The testimony and exhibits, however, do not support Plaintiff's contention that a preliminary injunction against Defendant Heck will prevent irreparable harm to it. There is sufficient evidence showing that the harm of unfavorable information comes from sources other than Defendant Heck.
9. The Court finds that the exhibits and testimony does not favor either Plaintiff or Defendant with respect to the balance of hardship and advancement of the public interest. As with the other factors, different inferences could be drawn from the conflicting testimony. Plaintiff has not met its burden with respect to these criteria.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction against Defendant Mary Katherine Heck.
Dated this 24th day of June 2009.
Judge Michael O Miller
Lynne Booth
Judicial Administrative Assistant
The hearing yesterday was simply amazing, I could not have asked for anything better if I had written it myself.
This is the result from just the hearing for the preliminary injunction, where the shelter was trying to muzzle me until there can be an actual trial. I am therefore permitted by the court to continue blogging. I will also publish the hearing transcripts as soon as they are available. Below is the text of the order, I will put a link to a pdf copy as soon as I can get one that is easier to read. I have removed the attorney's names at the bottom, and the admininstrative assistant's name, which appear on each of the four pages.
(The counter-claim was not dealt with at the hearing, that comes later. That is a claim by me against both the Board and Mary Jo Spring personally for publicly calling me a terrorist).
======================================================
ARIZONA SUPERIOR COURT, PIMA COUNTY
JUDGE: HON. MICHAEL MILLER CASE NO. C20091025
COURT REPORTER: NONE DATE: June 24, 2009
THE HERMITAGE CAT SHELTER, INC, an
Arizona non-profit corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSALIE TORSKE and JOHN DOE TORSKE, et
al.,
Defendants.
MARY KATHERINE HECK,
Counter-Claimant,
v.
THE HERMITAGE CAT SHELTER, INC., an
Arizona non-profit corporation,
Counter-Defendant.
MARY KATHERINE HECK,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
MARY JO SPRING, JOHN DOES 1-5,
Third-Party Defandants
ORDER
Plaintiff The Hermitage Cat Shelter, Inc. moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant Mary ("Katy") Heck from disseminating confidential information, interfering with Plaintiff's business relations, or communicating with Plaintiff's donors. Defendant Heck opposes the application for preliminary injunction. The Court conducted an extended evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's application that included numerous enhibits, as well as party and non-party testimony.
The criteria for granting preliminary injunctive relief are: 1) the strong likelihood of success on the merits, 2) the possibility of irreparable harm to the plaintiff if relief is not granted, 3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and 4) advancement of the public interest. LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482,56 P.3d 56 (App.2002). Whether an injunction should issue is a matter commited to the trial court's discretion, which will be disturbed generally only for abuse of discretion. Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363,982 P.2d 1277 (1999). The Court is required to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision. Ariz. R.Civ.P., Rule 52(a).
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The Court finds and concludes as follows:
1. Plaintiff the Hermitage Cat Shelter, Inc. is a non-profit corporation doing business as a cat shelter in Tucson, Arizona.
2. Defendant Heck was an employee of Plaintiff, but left in 2007.
3. Plaintiff has been the subject of unfavorable information from a variety of sources for at least the past year. The sources include prior employees, volunteers, and Board members. The unfavorable information includes criticisms of personnel practices, fundraising, expenditures, cleaning practices, and disclosure of information.
4. As a non-profit corporation that relies upon unpaid volunteers and donors, information about the activities and goals of the organization is made available in a variety of contexts.
5. The testimony among the witnesses frequently conflicted as it pertained to who had information, when they had information, the accuracy of the information, and whether the information was public or private. Additionally, there was testimony from which a finder of fact could conclude that information was obtained and disclosed by persons who are neither parties nor witnesses.
6. It is not clear that the Employment Manual supports the post-employment restrictions that Plaintiff infers from it.
7. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not proven a strong likelihood of success on the merits.
9. The unfavorable information may be causing harm to Plaintiff. The testimony and exhibits, however, do not support Plaintiff's contention that a preliminary injunction against Defendant Heck will prevent irreparable harm to it. There is sufficient evidence showing that the harm of unfavorable information comes from sources other than Defendant Heck.
9. The Court finds that the exhibits and testimony does not favor either Plaintiff or Defendant with respect to the balance of hardship and advancement of the public interest. As with the other factors, different inferences could be drawn from the conflicting testimony. Plaintiff has not met its burden with respect to these criteria.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction against Defendant Mary Katherine Heck.
Dated this 24th day of June 2009.
Judge Michael O Miller
Lynne Booth
Judicial Administrative Assistant
