Remedies
Mogill
Spring 2014
1) Is the P seeking an EQUITABLE or LEGAL remedy?
· Equitable: you are directed to do something or stop doing something
o Equity cases have no right to jury trial (as opposed to matters of law) under the 7th Amendment.
· Legal: Damages (compensatory, punitive, benefit or the bargain, etc)
· Restitution: to restore you to prior position, disgorge benefits from wrongdoer
2) What does the court consider in interpreting statutes for allowable remedies or creating remedies where there is no statute that defines the appropriate remedy?
– Does the remedy:
o achieve the purpose of the statute
o Promote justice
o adequacy of the statutory damages,
o difficulty in measuring damages
o the importance of the right involved
3) What are the equitable remedies?
*equity “jurisdiction”: the court has discretion to determine whether or not equitable relief is appropriate in light of inadequacy of remedy at law, irreparability of future harm, the relative hardship, & the public interest.
Injunctions (Permanent)
– inadequate remedy at law
– irreparable harm (great/severe future harm)
– balancing of hardships
– public interest
– Injunctions only used to prevent imminent irreparable harm, does not remedy past conduct (damages is to compensate for past conduct).
– Injunctive relief requires the court to keep dealing with the case lest the D not perform as required or P is not happy with the way D provides the ordered relief – contempt proceedings, etc
– Often where the right involved concerns use or enjoyment of land, injunctive relief is the more complete remedy. Land is typically regarded as unique and damage to it appropriate for equitable relief where its usefulness is seriously impaired
o Wheelock v. Noonan (huge pile of rocks dumped on land)
o Muehlman v. Keilman (Noisy trucks next door)
– 1st Amendment Limits on Injunctions (must be narrowly tailored)
o Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. : injunction restraining protester’s speech is permissible if the rights of the parties are carefully balanced and the injunction narrowly tailored.
o Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western NY: “floating buffers” surrounding moving people is unconstitutional bc it creates too much uncertainty & this tends to burden free speech.
o Galella v. Onassis: Onassis’ privacy and liberty interest balanced against Galella’s economic/livelihood interest.
– Public Interest Limitations on Injunctions
o Graham v. Cirocco: Public interest in having enough specialist surgeons in the area trumps Graham’s interest in enforcing the non-compete.
o Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.: Court finds that public interest in keeping plant open trumps damage to people living in the area – 300 employees, and impact as precedent on other nearby plants’ ability to operate and their employees ad so on
Specific Performance
– No adequate remedy at law
o land/real estate is generally considered unique and therefore appropriate for specific performance (Estate of Lucille Osborn v. Kemp)
o treasured pets with whom the P has en emotional bond (Houseman v. Dare)
o No adequate remedy at law bc it would be tough to measure damages as to the shopping mall as a whole. (Dover Shopping Center v. Cushman’s)
o Under UCC 2-716, if the good is unique or there are “other proper circumstances”, specific performance is available as a remedy
§ (Sedmack v. Charlie’s Chevrolet – Corvette was unique), (Weathersby v. Gore – cotton easily available and not unique)
o Where parties unambiguously provide for damages as the only remedy in the contract, courts won’t impose specific performance.
– valid contract (certainty of terms, consideration)
o Adequacy of consideration must be evaluated at the time the contract is written, not in hindsight.
o Mutuality of remedies: in contracts, any remedy available should be available to both parties.
§ Less favored doctrine now
§ Mutuality not needed if one party has completed their performance
o a mutual mistake of fact that materially affects the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties may constitute a sufficient basis to grant rescission and deny equitable relief (no valid contract)
– ready, willing, and able plaintiff (& defendant is able to perform)
o Impossibility does not defeat specific pe
paration of powers requires that the court enforce the statute as is.
Constitutional Limits (Free Speech and Access to Courts)
– generally, no equitable remedy (injunction) for defamation bc there is a remedy at law (defamation suit)
– Willing v. Mazzacone: The insolvency of a defendant does not create a situation where there is no adequate remedy at law. In deciding whether a remedy is adequate, it is the remedy itself, and not its possible lack of success that is the determining factor.
o The distinction is important bc in remedies at law there is a right to trial by jury, whereas in equity actions there is no such right.
– Martin v. Reynolds Co.: the mere existence of a concurrent legal remedy does not bar equitable relief (an injunction to enjoin conduct can be issued pending the outcome of libel/defamation litigation).
– fixed, but not floating, buffer zones around abortion clinics for pro-lifers to protest are not an unconstitutional limit on 1st Amendment right. (Madsen v. Women Health Center & Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western NY)
– Mabe v. City of Galveston: the privacy interest of public officials is outweighed by the public interest where the speech is in regards to a matter of public concern.
– Pre-suit screening injunctions: injunctions can be issued to prevent a party from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. Usually such suits are designed merely to harass. (Pavalonis v. King)
Pre-suit Screening injunction considerations:
1) history of litigation and whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or duplicative suits
2) P’s motive in pursuing litigation (good faith expectation of prevailing?)
3) Is litigant represented by counsel?
4) Would other sanctions be adequate to protect the courts and parties?
