§ 1.10.2 Appeal of Preliminary Injunctions.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 1.10.2 Appeal of Preliminary Injunctions. The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable. A.R.S. § 12-2101(F)(2); Bank of Arizona v. Superior Court, 30 Ariz. 72, 245 P. 366 (1926) ; Haechler v. Andrews, 2 Ariz. App. 395, 409 P.2d 315 (1965) . Even in the federal system (where a TRO is not appealable), where a temporary restraining order is in effect for an extraordinary time, it is likewise immediately appealable, as it constitutes a preliminary injunction. Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Chaske, 28 F.3d 1466, 1472 (8th Cir. 1994) (TRO in effect for 30 months). While bringing a motion for relief pursuant to Rules 52(b), 59, or 60(c) will extend the time for filing the appeal, a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 65(c) will not. Nu-Tred Tire Co. v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp., 118 Ariz. 417, 577 P.2d 268 (Ct. App. 1978) .

A trial court’s determination will not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. TP Racing , LLLP v. Simms, 232 Ariz. 489, 492, 307 P.3d 56, 59 (App. 2013); Arizona Ass’n of Providers for Persons with Disabilities, 223 Ariz. 6, 12, 219 P.3d 216, 222 (Ct. App. 2009) ; County of Cochise v. Board of Supervisors, 7 Ariz. App. 571, 442 P.2d 129 (1968) , Owner Operator Independent Driver’s Ass’n v. Swift Transportation Co., 632 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2011) . “An abuse of discretion exists if the superior court applied the incorrect substantive law or preliminary injunction standard, based his decision on an erroneous material finding of fact, or applied the appropriate preliminary injunction standard in a manner resulting in an abuse of discretion. TP Racing, LLLP, 232 Ariz. at 492, 307 P.3d at 59. “The burden of establishing the propriety of a preliminary injunction is on the movant.” Baker Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Chaske, 28 F.3d 1466, 1472 (8th Cir. 1994). Financial Associates, Inc. v. Hub Properties, Inc., 143 Ariz. 543, 545, 694 P.2d 831, 833 (Ct. App. 1984) , reiterated that injunctions pendente lite: (1) are discretionary; (2) will only be reversed for a clear abuse of discretion; and (3) are more likely to be reversed upon appeal where the injunction has been granted, rather than denied. The appellate court will defer to the trial court’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments, LP, 228 Ariz. 61, 64, 263 P.3d 69, 72 (Ct. App. 2001) .

Review can be slightly different dependent upon the type of case. For example, where an injunction provides class-wide relief, effective review of the injunction requires review of the class certification. Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2012). The appellate court also may be required to determine whether the trial court had “‘authority to rule on a party’s motion for preliminary injunction.’“ Id. at 997, quoting Hendricks v. Bank of America, N.A., 408 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2005) . “[W]hen a district court grants a preliminary injunction protecting First...