Chandler Restraining Order Lawyers | Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm

Chandler Restraining Order Attorneys

A restraining order is a form of injunctive relief. An injunction is basically a court order commanding or preventing an action. See Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). There are four main types of injunctions in Arizona: (1) temporary restraining orders; (2) preliminary injunctions; (3) permanent injunctions; and (4) specific performance.

A restraining order is a directive or order issued by a Court that prohibits or restricts prevent certain acts, communications, and behaviors. In a generic sense, injunctions against harassment and orders of protection are types of restraining orders, which are discussed in further detail on our page specifically for injunctions against harassment and protective orders. However, restraining orders can govern other activities depending on the circumstances.

Restraining orders may be issued in a civil case to prevent a party from engaging in a particular activity. For example, a Court may issue a restraining order to prevent a person from violating an employment contract that prohibits disclosure of company information.

A temporary restraining order, which is commonly referred to as a “TRO,” is a short-term injunction or order issued by a Court to stop or restrict certain acts for a limited period of time. A TRO may be used in a lawsuit to prevent a party from engaging in certain acts or from disposing of property until the Court can determine the parties’ rights and obligations relating to those acts or property. For example, a Court may temporarily restrict a former employee from disclosing internal company information that the company contends is confidential or proprietary until there is a final disposition by the Court as whether that information is confidential, proprietary, and entitled to protection. If the Court determines the information is entitled to protection, then a permanent injunction can be issued to prevent the former employee from disclosing the information. However, if the Court finds the information is not entitled to protection, then the TRO is terminated, and no permanent injunction is entered.

There are certain criteria that must be established to obtain a TRO.

  • “The standard for issuing a TRO is the same as that for issuing a preliminary injunction.” Spears v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 372 F. Supp.3d 893, 926 (D. Ariz. 2019). To obtain a TRO, the movant must establish: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a possibility of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) a balance of hardships weighing in favor of the injunction; and (4) public policy favoring the injunction. See TP Racing, LLLP v. Simms, 232 Ariz. 489, 495 ¶ 21 (Ct. App. 2013). TROs should only operate to “preserve the status quo.” Firchau, 86 Ariz. at 219. Typically, a court may only issue a TRO with notice to the adverse party. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1).
  • On rare occasion, a court can grant a TRO without notice to the adverse party. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(b). To obtain a TRO without notice, in addition to the above referenced elements, the movant must present “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will likely result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition, or that prior notice will likely cause the adverse party to take action resulting in such injury, loss, or damage” and the movant or movant’s attorney must “certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice or the reasons why it should not be required.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1).
  • If the court grants a TRO without notice, the TRO must state the date and hour it was issued, describe the injury and state why it is irreparable, state why the order was issued without notice, and be promptly filed in the clerk’s office and entered in the record. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). A TRO issued without notice automatically expires on the date the court sets, which cannot exceed ten days, unless the court orders an extension for good cause, or the parties agree to an extension. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(3).
  • If a TRO is issued without notice, the motion for preliminary injunction must be set for hearing at the earliest possible time, taking precedence over all other matters except the same type of hearings, and the party who obtained the TRO must proceed with the motion, otherwise the court will dissolve it. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(4). The adverse party can move to dissolve or modify the TRO issued without notice on two-days’ notice or on even shorter notice set by the court, who must promptly hear and decide such motion. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(5).
  • A court may only issue a TRO if the movant gives security in an amount the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(c). However, the State and its agencies, counties, municipalities, and other governmental agencies are not required to give security Id.
  • Every TRO must state the reasons why it issued, state its terms specifically and describe in reasonable detail — not by referring to the complaint or other document — the act(s) restrained or required. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1). The TRO is then binding on the parties, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and other persons who are in active concert or participation with said persons provided they receive actual notice of the TRO by personal service of otherwise. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2).

Preliminary Injunctions

Preliminary injunctions are also temporary, though they can last much longer than TROs. Courts issue preliminary injunctions after a hearing, which can be consolidated with the trial on the merits with reasonable notice of the parties, and these injunctions can last until the court rules on a permanent injunction. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). The same standards discussed above for TROs, including the requisite elements, notice, security, and contents and scope of order, apply to preliminary injunctions.

After an answer is filed, a party can move to dissolve or modify a preliminary injunction with notice to the opposing party, and unless the motion is unopposed, the court must hold a hearing and allow the parties to present evidence. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(3). “If the court determines that there are insufficient grounds for the injunction, or that it is overbroad, the court may dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction.” Id.

A court can issue sanctions for civil or criminal contempt against a party who violates an injunction based on an application, supporting affidavit and hearing. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 65(f).

Permanent Injunctions

In contrast to the elements needed for TROs or preliminary injunctions, “[a] plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must show: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” River Springs Ranch Prop. Owners Ass’n v. L’Heureux, 2010 WL 5030913, at *3, ¶ 10 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2010) (quoting eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 388 (2006)).

Specific Performance

“Specific performance is a remedy available for breach of contract.” Skydive Ariz., Inc. v. Hogue, 238 Ariz. 357, 368, ¶ 46 (Ct. App. 2015). Specific performance is a type of injunction where the court orders a party to perform a contract. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 357 (1981). To obtain an order for specific performance, “(1) there must be a contract; (2) the terms of that contract must be certain and fair; (3) the party seeking specific performance must not have acted inequitably; (4) specific enforcement must not inflict hardship on the other party or public that outweighs the anticipated benefit to the party seeking specific performance; and (5) there must be no adequate remedy at law.” The Power P.E.O., Inc. v. Employees Ins. of Wausau, 201 Ariz. 559, 563, ¶ 22 (Ct. App. 2002).

As for the fifth element, damages are “remedies at law” and therefore, if a court determines that awarding damages would provide adequate compensation for the breach of contract, then the court may not order specific performance. See Woliansky v. Miller, 135 Ariz. 444, 446 (Ct. App. 1983). Courts have “wide discretion . . . to determine whether damages are an adequate remedy . . . and specific performance is never a matter of absolute right.” Id. For example, because of the unique nature of land, damages are not typically adequate to compensate the injured party in a breach of contract for the sale of real property. Id. But “where the purchaser does not desire the real property for personal use but instead wants to acquire the land merely for the profit to be gained upon resale, damages would theoretically be an adequate remedy.” Id. Additionally, “before a buyer is awarded specific performance, he generally must satisfy the court that he is ready and able to perform.” Id. But if “the seller repudiates the contract, the purchaser is not required to tender performance before commencing the action in order to preserve his right to enforce the contract.” Id.

If you have had a restraining order issued in your name and need someone to help you try to get it modified or dismissed, email the Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm or call us at 480-755-7110 to discuss your restraining order matter.

Arizona Office Address:
3185 S. Price Rd.
Chandler, AZ 85248
Phone: 480-755-7110

Joe O.
Joe O.
23:31 21 Mar 23
Tony B.
Tony B.
00:19 16 Mar 23
Attorneys for Freedom is super friendly and very relationship oriented. I felt at home the moment I... sat down. My lawyer Andy and paralegal Brittany were awesome. My case was unique and required research that would have been instrumental to navigating my case had it moved to a formal charge. Fortunately, the case sort of resolved without further legal intervention. I would definitely hire them again (I hope I don't need to).read more
Steve P.
Steve P.
16:33 28 Feb 23
I can not say enough about my experience with Attorneys For Freedom and especially Rachel Moss. I... was involved in an extremely stressful situation and I experienced her as very compassionate and open to my concerns. She was able to synthesize and relate the germane issues about the situation with me and I really appreciated that she was open and able to also consult with other attorneys in the office. I found Rachel to be knowledgeable, reliable and available. She (and the firm) get 5+ stars from me and I would recommend her (and A4F) without reservation to more
Morgan V.
Morgan V.
18:59 27 Feb 23
Truly helped us with our case. Definitely would recommend to anyone!
Oscar V.
Oscar V.
23:25 24 Feb 23
I just want to thank Mark and all of his staff for coming through for me. I was thinking that I was... gonna face some time, but he is a man of his word and got me probation like he said he would. Thanks Mark Victor! You gave my life back to me. I would and will recommend anyone going through some kind of legal matters. You and his staff are the greatest . Also I'd like to thank Andrew C. Marcantel for hanging in there with me. I appreciate you all very much. Thanks againSincerely.O. Vegaread more