B. [§ 7.3] Allegations and Proof—The Four Factors

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

B. [§ 7.3] Allegations and Proof—The Four Factors

A complaint or request for injunctive relief, whether the request is for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction, must allege and demonstrate four factors. Ademiluyi v. Egbuonu, 466 Md. 80, 114, 215 A.3d 329, 349 (2019). They are:

1) The existence of some right that will be irreparably injured. Anne Arundel County v. Whitehall Venture, 39 Md. App. 197, 384 A.2d 780 (1978).
2) That the benefits to the plaintiff in obtaining the injunction are equal to or outweigh the potential harm which the defendant would incur, were the injunction granted. This is known as the "balance of convenience" test. Fogle v. H & G Rest., Inc., 337 Md. 441, 654 A.2d 449 (1995); TJB, Inc. v. Arundel Bedding Corp., 63 Md. App. 186, 492 A.2d 365 (1985); Rowe v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 56 Md. App. 23, 466 A.2d 538 (1983).
3) That the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted. Scott v. Seek Lane Venture, Inc., 91 Md. App. 668, 605 A.2d 942 (1992). The injury need not "be beyond all possibility of compensation in damages, nor need it be very great." Chestnut Real Estate P'ship v. Huber, 148 Md. App. 190, 205, 811 A.2d 389, 398 (2002) (citations omitted). The matter of irreparable harm was considered in some detail in Davidson v. Seneca Crossing Section II Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc., 187 Md. App. 601, 979 A.2d 260 (2009). The case also examined the competing interests that may come into play between an injunction prohibiting certain communications on the one hand and rights of expression on the other.
4) When appropriate, that the public interest is best served by granting the injunction. State Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Baltimore County, 281 Md. 548, 383 A.2d 51 (1977); see M. Leo Storch Ltd. P'ship v. Erol's, Inc., 95 Md. App. 253, 620 A.2d 408 (1993); Scott, 91 Md. App. 668, 605 A.2d 942; see also J.L. Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n, 368 Md. 71, 792 A.2d 288 (2002).

The Court of Appeals in Ademiluyi v. Egbuonu stated that the four factors are conjunctive, and that "the first and third factors are generally considered to be the most significant." 466 Md. 80, 114-15, 215 A.3d 329, 349 (2019). Citing Fogle, the Court of Appeals noted that "[t]he party seeking the preliminary injunction has the burden of adducing facts necessary to satisfy these factors." Ehrlich v. Perez, 394 Md. 691, 708, 908 A.2d 1220, 1230 (2006). The...