Brief Fact Summary. A dispute arose between a magazine publisher and an advertiser. The advertiser alleged that the publisher breached their contract by not allowing them to advertise on every back cover of the publisher's magazine into perpetuity.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Equitable relief is only available when a party demonstrates legal remedies are insufficient, there is a probability of success on the merits and the potential of irreparable harm.
Issue. Was the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction appropriate?
Held. Yes. First, there is nothing in the record demonstrating that the harm cannot be remedied via damages, i.e. there is a remedy at law. Further, the Plaintiff is obligated to mitigate its damages. There is no indication in the record why the Plaintiff did not attempt to advertise in another magazine. Additionally, nothing in the record shows that the Plaintiff prepared its advertisements specifically for the Defendant's audience. Moreover, the court observes "[i]f it had been shown that such advertising space is not readily available because of commitments to other national advertisers, American might well have established a case for equitable intervention, but the record before us is barren of any such proof." Since they did not make the requisite showing, equitable relief is not appropriate. Second, as the trial court recognized, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that they will succeed on the merits. Finally, there is not indication that the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury to its commercial good will.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) irreparable harm, and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of the case to make them a fair ground for litigation, and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor.View Full Point of Law