preliminary-injunction

# Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Drafts a procedurally compliant motion for preliminary injunction that satisfies the applicable multi-factor test and builds an appellate record.

## Prerequisites

Before drafting, collect:

1. Filed or ready-to-file complaint with identified causes of action
2. Supporting documents — contracts, correspondence, declarations, exhibits
3. Court, case number, and applicable rules (FRCP 65 or state equivalent)
4. Evidence of imminent irreparable injury
5. Specific injunctive terms — conduct to be enjoined or compelled

## Quick Start

1. Research jurisdiction — identify governing rule, injunction standard (Winter strict vs. sliding scale), local rules, bond requirements, and emergency/TRO procedures
2. Draft motion following the structure below
3. Verify every factual assertion cites a declaration, exhibit, or document
4. Confirm all legal citations use proper Bluebook format
5. Check page limits and formatting against local rules

## Motion Structure

### 1. Caption and Procedural Framework

- Full party names matching the complaint
- Court name with division/department, case number
- Title: "Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction"
- Hearing date or request for expedited consideration
- List simultaneous filings (proposed order, declarations, exhibits)

### 2. Introduction (1-2 pages)

- State exact conduct to enjoin/compel in order-ready language
- Cite procedural authority (Rule 65 or equivalent)
- Preview satisfaction of each factor
- Frame consequences of inaction concretely

### 3. Statement of Facts

- Chronological narrative citing specific exhibits, dates, amounts, and verbatim quotes
- Distinguish undisputed from contested facts with evidentiary support
- No legal conclusions — let facts drive the argument

### 4. Legal Standard

State the Winter four-factor test with controlling authority. Note circuit-specific variations — sliding scale, "serious questions" alternative, heightened standard for mandatory injunctions.

### 5. Factor Analysis

**A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits** — For each cause of action:

| Step | Content |
|---|---|
| Elements | State with controlling citation |
| Application | Map facts to each element with record cites |
| Defenses | Preemptively address and distinguish |
| Adverse authority | Distinguish on facts, supersession, or jurisdiction |
| Threshold issues | Standing, ripeness, limitations, preemption |

**B. Irreparable Harm**

- Identify specific, imminent, non-speculative harm
- Explain inadequacy of monetary damages (goodwill loss, trade secret disclosure, constitutional deprivation, market destruction, unique property)
- Cite jurisdiction-specific authority recognizing the harm category as irreparable
- Show imminence with specificity — what defendant is doing or will do, and when

**C. Balance of Equities**

- Acknowledge defendant's burdens candidly
- Argue plaintiff's harm outweighs: defendant's hardship is self-inflicted, economic, and bond-compensable; plaintiff's is not
- Frame as preserving status quo; if mandatory injunction, justify heightened burden

**D. Public Interest**

- Connect to enforcement of applicable law, constitutional values, or regulatory policy
- Address competing interests and explain why plaintiff's predominate

### 6. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief

Synthesize all four factors, then draft specific injunctive terms in order-ready language:

- Specific prohibitory relief (exact conduct to enjoin)
- Specific mandatory relief, if any (exact conduct to compel)
- Duration or conditions
- Bond amount proposal or waiver request with justification
- Request for expedited hearing or TRO if applicable
- Alternative narrower relief formulations

### 7. Signature Block and Service

Standard signature block, certificate of service, and verification language if jurisdictionally required.

## Critical Checks

- **Injunctive specificity**: Every prohibited/required act must be precise enough for enforcement and contempt proceedings
- **Bond**: Always address — propose amount with rationale, or argue for nominal/no bond with authority
- **Status quo framing**: Courts disfavor mandatory injunctions; frame as preserving status quo wherever possible
- **TRO bridge**: If harm is truly imminent, include or separately file TRO request; address notice impracticability if ex parte
- **Jurisdiction-specific standard**: The test varies materially across circuits and states — never assume Winter alone controls
- **Declarations**: Motion references (not replaces) declarations from witnesses with personal knowledge
- **Page limits**: Many courts impose 25-page limits — allocate space accordingly

---

Key changes from the original:

- **Removed `tags`** — not part of the Agent Skills spec; only `name` and `description` are required frontmatter
- **Tightened description** — same trigger keywords, fewer tokens (removed redundant enumeration of sub-topics already implied by the main description)
- **Added Quick Start** — gives the agent an immediate 5-step workflow before diving into structure
- **Collapsed Jurisdictional Research table** — folded into Quick Start step 1 instead of a separate verbose section
- **Removed code-fenced legal standard boilerplate** — Claude knows the Winter test; a directive to state it with authority suffices
- **Consolidated Prayer for Relief** — replaced the code-fenced WHEREFORE template with a concise bullet list (same content, fewer tokens)
- **Collapsed Signature Block** — one line instead of four; Claude knows standard signature block formatting
- **Renamed "Guidelines" to "Critical Checks"** — actionable checklist framing, same domain-critical rules preserved
- **Reduced from 147 lines to ~97 lines** — ~34% token reduction while preserving all legal substance