§ 3.7.2.6.5.4 Injunctions.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.7.2.6.5.4 Injunctions. Granting or denying injunctive relief rests within the trial court’s sound discretion. See Power P.E.O., Inc. v. Emps. Ins. of Wausau, 201 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15, 38 P.3d 1224, 1227 (App. 2002); Ahwatukee Custom Estates Mgmt. Ass’n, Inc. v. Turner, 196 Ariz. 631, 634, ¶ 5, 2 P.3d 1276, 1279 (App. 2000). Accordingly, the appellate court reviews a trial court’s order granting or denying an injunction for a clear abuse of discretion. See Mahar v. Acuna, 230 Ariz. 530, 534, ¶ 14, 287 P.3d 824, 828 (App. 2012) (injunction prohibiting harassment); Cty. of Cochise v. Faria, 221 Ariz. 619, 621, ¶ 14, 221 P.3d 957, 959 (App. 2009); Valley Med. Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363, 366, ¶ 9, 982 P.2d 1277, 1280 (1999) (entry of preliminary injunction). An abuse of discretion includes an error of law. See Parker v. City of Tucson, 233 Ariz. 422, 428, ¶ 11, 314 P.3d 100, 106 (App. 2013).

An appellate court also applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s denial of injunctive relief. See Dowling v. Stapley, 218 Ariz. 80, 83, ¶ 4, 179 P.3d 960, 963 (App. 2008); Garden Lakes Cmty. Ass’n v. Madigan, 204 Ariz. 238, 241, ¶ 10, 62 P.3d 983, 986 (App. 2003). It similarly applies an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a request to modify or dissolve an injunction. See Town of Tortolita v. Napolitano, 199 Ariz. 556, 559, ¶ 10, 20 P.3d 599, 602 (App. 2001).

Granting or denying a preliminary injunction is also within the trial court’s sound discretion, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. The court of appeals defers to the trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, but reviews its legal conclusions de novo. See 1B Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. P’ship, 228 Ariz. 61, 64, ¶ 5, 263 P.3d 69, 72 (App. 2011); see also Ariz. Ass’n of Providers v. State, 223 Ariz. 6, 12, ¶ 14, 219 P.3d 216, 222 (App. 2009) (reviewing grant of preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion).

Abuse of discretion in granting a preliminary injunction can take the form of misapplication of the law to the facts. See Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Am. Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians, 227 Ariz. 262, 268, ¶ 9, 257 P.3d 181, 187 (App. 2011). It also exists if the superior court applied the incorrect substantive law preliminary injunction standard, based its decision on an erroneous material finding of fact, or applied the appropriate preliminary...