§ 1.6.2 Court's Discretion.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 1.6.2 Court’s Discretion. Despite the varied considerations discussed throughout this chapter, “[t]he issuance of a preliminary injunction is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion.” Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363, 366, 982 P.2d 1277, 1280 (1999) ; see also Farnsworth v. Hubbard, 78 Ariz. 160, 277 P.2d 252 (1954) ; IB Property Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments, LP, 228 Ariz. 61, 64, 263 P.3d 69, 72 (Ct. App. 2011 ). Town of Tortolita v. Napolitano, 199 Ariz. 556, 559, 20 P.3d 599, 602 (Ct. App. 2001) . “An injunction is an equitable remedy, which allows the court to structure the remedy so as to promote equity between the parties. The discretion in injunctive proceedings lies with the trial court, not the reviewing court.” City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172, 187, 181 P.3d 219, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) , quoting Scholten v. Blackhawk Partners, 184 Ariz. 326, 331, 909 P.2d 393, 398 (Ct. App. 1995) . 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) that an abuse of discretion is more likely to be found upon appeal where the injunction has been granted, rather than denied. America West Airlines v. National Mediation Board, 969 F.2d 777, 783 (9th Cir. 1992) , opinion amended, 986 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir. 1993), and Gotland v. Town of Cave Creek, 172 Ariz. 397, 399, 837 P.2d 1132, 1134 (Ct. App. 1992) , vacated on other grounds, 175 Ariz....