This document summarizes Georgia law on injunctions and restraining orders under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-65. It discusses the different types of injunctions (temporary restraining orders and interlocutory injunctions), procedural requirements, the four factor balancing test courts use to determine if an injunction is warranted, and examples of courts granting and denying injunctions based on their analysis of the factors. Key points include that substantial threat of irreparable harm is the most important factor, a single factor like likelihood of success on the merits can be enough to deny an injunction, and courts may add stipulations like requiring parties to provide financial information.

1. Presented By W: www.mijs.com
T: 770-429-1499
Injunctions and Restraining
Orders
Judicial Analysis Under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-65
Jeffrey A. Daxe: jad@mijs.com
August 02, 2022
Assisted By Marilyn Yingling, 3L, and Anika Akbar, 2L – Mercer University School of

2. Relief Provided by
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-65
• Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) ( ≤ 30 days)
• Ex Parte TRO
• Interlocutory Injunction (until trial)
Goal = Protect the applicant and preserve the
status quo.

3. Step 1: Procedural Requirements
• Verified Complaint, Affidavit, or Satisfactory Proofs
• The distinction lies in the notice:
• Ex parte TRO = No notice or due
process.
• Intentional secrecy.
• TRO = Limited notice and due
process.
• Notice and full evidentiary
hearing is required.
• Additional notice required to
consolidate the Interlocutory
Injunction hearing with final
judgement on the merits.
TRO Interlocutory Injunction

4. Ex Parte TRO and
Jurisdictional Limits (1 of 2)
DENIED.
• Cause of Action:
• Plaintiff alleged breach of contract
and conversion.
• Plaintiff’s Request for an
Emergency Ex Parte TRO:
• To enjoin Defendants from
(1) Suspending Plaintiff’s website
or email;
(2) Damaging Plaintiff’s business
in any way;
(3) Restore Plaintiff’s website and
email immediately; and
(4) Order Defendants to provide
info to Plaintiffs.

5. Ex Parte TRO and
Jurisdictional Limits (2 of 2)
DENIED.
• Judge Gale C. Flake’s analysis:
• Ex parte TROs can only be if
irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result before the
adverse party can be heard in
opposition.
• Plaintiff believes Defendants
will retaliate, – no evidence.
• Failure to meet
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-65(b) limits the
Court’s jurisdiction.
• Instead of preserving the status
quo, Plaintiff’s request would
grant ultimate relief – exceeds
statutory limits.

6. Step 2: Balancing Test
• 4 – Factor Test:
(1) Substantial threat and irreparable injury;*
(2) Harm v. harm;
(3) Substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and
(4) Public interest.

7. Substantial Harm is the Most
Important Factor (1 of 2)
GRANTED.
• Cause of Action:
• Plaintiff purchased properties
from Defendant Flourish Home
Investors, LLC with Defendants
Patel handling the closing.
Plaintiff only received Security
Deeds to 5 of the 10 properties,
with no explanation from
Defendants.
• Defendants violated Emergency
Ex Parte TRO
• Plaintiff’s Request for an
Interlocutory Injunction:
• To freeze all of the Defendants’
assets and their bank accounts.*
*Court did not freeze all
assets but did freeze the
amount allegedly owed.

8. Substantial Harm is the Most
Important Factor (2 of 2)
GRANTED.
• Judge Courtney L. Johnson’s
analysis:
(1) There is substantial threat of
irreparable injury to Plaintiff – No
evidence or explanation for missing
Security Deeds and possible fraud. *
(2) Threatened injury to Plaintiff
outweighs threat to Defendants –
Court not inclined to freeze all assets,
but enough to cover costs already
paid.
(3) There is substantial likelihood
Plaintiff will prevail on the merits –
Plaintiff produced evidence of fraud
and financials of the deal.
(4) TRO will not disserve against public
interest.
*J. Johnson noted that Defendants
failed to produce information
ordered by previous TRO as weight
in favor of Plaintiff under Factor 1.

9. One Factor Can Be Enough (1 of 2)
• Cause of Action:
• Plaintiff sued business-partner
and developer-partner for breach
of fiduciary duty, tortious
interference, unjust enrichment,
quantum meruit, GA RICO
violations, and conspiracy.
• Plaintiff’s Request for an
Interlocutory Injunction:
• To enjoin Defendants from
(1) Transferring any fees from the
project to escrow account;
(2) Selling or conveying land in
joint interest; and
(3) Taking any other actions
which could harm Plaintiff’s
interests.
DENIED.

10. One Factor Can Be Enough (2 of 2)
• Senior Judge John J. Goger’s
Analysis:
• Plaintiffs base request solely on
allegations of oral agreements.
• Applying prudence and caution
required to grant extraordinary
remedy of injunctive relief – the
court need only consider whether
there is a substantial likelihood
that Plaintiffs prevail on the
merits.
• Plaintiff’s base their request on a
claim that is not substantially
likely to prevail – Therefore, it’s
the only relevant factor on which to
base judgment.
DENIED.

11. All Four Factors Evaluated
and Balanced (1 of 2)
GRANTED.
• Cause of Action:
• Plaintiff alleged breach of
contract, conversion, and unjust
enrichment.
• Defendant counterclaimed for
defamation after dismissal of the
first action.
• Defendant’s Request for an
Interlocutory Injunction:
• To order Plaintiffs to
(1) Remove podcasts concerning
Defendant;
(2) Remove posts on website; and
(3) Cease making oral or written
defamatory statements about
Defendant.

12. All Four Factors Evaluated
and Balanced (2 of 2)
GRANTED.
• Judge Tom Campbell’s analysis:
(1) There is substantial threat of
irreparable injury to Defendant –
Clients and prospective clients see
defamatory posts by Plaintiff on web
searches.
(2) An Injunction can be appropriate
even when it could restrict freedom of
speech.
(3) TRO will not disserve public interest.
*J. Campbell noted that the
defamation is an attempt to
influence the outcome of litigation,
and results in a waste of the Court’s
resources.

13. Posting Security as a Tool (1 of 2)
• Cause of Action:
• Plaintiff sued business-partner
and developer-partner for breach
of fiduciary duty, tortious
interference, unjust enrichment,
quantum meruit, GA RICO
violations, and conspiracy.
• Plaintiff’s Request for an
Interlocutory Injunction:
• To enjoin Defendants from
(1) Transferring any fees from the
project to escrow account;
(2) Selling or conveying land in
joint interest; and
(3) Taking any other actions
which could harm Plaintiff’s
interests.
DENIED.

14. Posting Security as a Tool (2 of 2)
• Senior Judge John J. Goger’s
analysis:
(1) No persuasive evidence of substantial
threat of irreparable injury –
Extreme delay in pursuing claims.
(2) Withholding Defendant’s
development fees would be much
greater harm to Defendants than
Plaintiff.*
(3) Plaintiff’s incomplete Complaint and
vague allegations leave doubt about
the merit of the claims.
(4) Disruption or delay to the Turner
Field Project would be against public
interest.
*Plaintiff’s lack of preparation and his unwillingness to post security at the
hearing strengthened Factor 2 in Defendant’s favor.
DENIED.

15. Step 3: Form and Scope
• Order must be specific and complete on its
face.
• If granted without notice:
• Endorsed with date and hour,
• Filed forthwith in clerk’s office and entered of record.
• Orders are binding on parties, their officers,
agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all
in concert or participation.

16. Appellate Process
• TRO – Discretionary.
• Interlocutory Injunction – Directly Appealable.
• Standards of Review
• Error of Law – De novo.
• Subjective Balancing – Abuse of Discretion.

17. Order with Added Stipulation
(1 of 2)
• Cause of Action:
• Plaintiff alleged fraud against
Defendant Dodd on behalf of a
minor because Defendant omitted
the minor from Probate
proceedings.
• Plaintiff’s Request for an
Interlocutory Injunction:
• Freeze all financial assets, real
estate assets, and other assets of
Defendant Dodd representing the
proceeds from the sale of the
subject properties.
GRANTED.

18. Order* with Added Stipulation
(2 of 2)
• Judge Courtney L. Johnson’s
analysis:
(1) Plaintiff may not have adequate
remedy at law – as such, there will be
irreparable harm.
(2) The threatened injury to Plaintiff
outweighs threat to Defendant.
(3) Via evidence provided at the hearing,
Plaintiff has established substantial
likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
(4) Not adverse to the public interest.
GRANTED.
*Court further ordered both parties to
provide financial information on sale
proceeds and bank accounts so the
Court could revise its interlocutory
injunction upon receipt.

19. QUESTIONS

20. THANK YOU!