11. Is the court likely to grant the corporation's motion for a preliminary injunction?

An injunction is a form of equitable relief that prevents someone from acting in a specified way or orders someone to act in a specified way. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 65 permits two types of injunctive relief, including preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders.

A preliminary injunction requires the defendant to receive notice and an opportunity to participate at a hearing on the issue. A court will grant a preliminary injunction IF: (i) the plaintiff shows he will suffer irreparable harm if it is not granted; (ii) the harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted outweighs the harm to the defendant if the injunction is granted; (iii) the plaintiff shows that he is likely to be successful on the merits; AND (iv) the public interest favors granting the injunction. Irreparable harm is the most important factor. If the party seeking injunctive relief has an adequate remedy at law (e.g., money damages), the injunction will be denied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a).

A temporary restraining order (TRO), by contrast, may be granted WITHOUT notice of the hearing to the adverse party IF three requirements are met: (i) the moving party gives specific facts in an affidavit or in the verified complaint to establish that immediate and irreparable injury will result to the moving party before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; (ii) the moving party certifies in writing all efforts to give notice of the hearing, if any, AND the reasons why notice should not be required; AND (iii) the moving party provides some security, the amount of which is determined by the court, to pay for any costs and damages incurred by the adverse party if he was wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).

The notice requirement for injunctive relief is defined as actual notice by personal service or another mechanism. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d).

B is correct. By requesting a preliminary injunction, the corporation took on the burden of giving notice to the employee and providing a sufficient showing of irreparable harm it would suffer without injunctive relief. A TRO would have required the corporation to make certain showings, but no notice to the employee. Thus, by requesting the preliminary injunction, without more, the corporation did not meet its burden for relief.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with incorrect legal reasoning. The court should not grant the preliminary injunction, but not simply because it failed to give notice to the employee. The corporation failed to make a sufficient showing that it would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the harm would have outweighed any harm to the employee. Finally, the corporation also failed to show that it would have likely succeeded on the merits and that public policy favors granting the injunction.

C is incorrect. This answer misstates the notice requirement for obtaining a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction requires the moving party to provide actual notice, which may be achieved by service of process or other means. Filing with the court does not amount to actual service and is insufficient under FRCP 65.

D is incorrect. As explained above, preliminary injunctions require multiple showings in addition to notice, including a showing of irreparable harm to the plaintiff, likelihood of success on the merits, and public policy favoring the injunctive relief.