Alberti v. Cruise
| Decision Date | 14 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 10029.,10029. |
| Citation | 383 F.2d 268 |
| Parties | Mireille R. ALBERTI, Appellant, v. Mary Ruth CRUISE, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Louis Koutoulakos, Arlington, Va. (Varoutsos, Koutoulakos & Arthur, Arlington, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and SOBELOFF and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, Mireille R. Alberti, a French national, instituted this action against Mrs. Mary Ruth Cruise to recover damages for malicious prosecution and defamation of character, alleging that Mrs. Cruise had maliciously attempted to have her deported from the United States, had brought false criminal charges against her in a state court of Virginia, and had maliciously caused to be published false and defamatory statements to various persons relating to plaintiff's chastity, morality, etc.
Mrs. Cruise answered, denied plaintiff's charges, filed a counterclaim asserting that the plaintiff had interfered with and harassed Mrs. Cruise in her family relationships and further counterclaimed against plaintiff for criminal conversation. Mrs. Cruise moved for a temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiff from contacting her by telephone, letter or otherwise and the court thereupon orally announced the granting of a broad injunction not only against Mrs. Alberti but against Mrs. Cruise and Mr. Cruise (the latter not a party to the suit) and other members of the Cruise family (not parties), restraining them from contacting or communicating with appellant. The court ordered this restraint pending trial of the case on the merits but no formal order was entered. On January 11, 1965, the case came on for trial before a jury and at the close of the plaintiff's case the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. Defendant's claims, except the request for a permanent injunction, were dismissed on her motion. The court then proceeded to enter a permanent injunction against not only the plaintiff, Mrs. Alberti, but also against the defendant, Mrs. Cruise, Mr. Cruise, and other persons. This injunction, which presents the sole question on appeal, will be later discussed in detail. No appeal was taken from the court's order directing a verdict in favor of the defendant.
At trial there was evidence to establish that plaintiff met defendant's husband, who was a Commander in the United States Navy, in France when he was stationed in the Mediterranean area. By her own admission, plaintiff lived with Mr. Cruise as his paramour throughout Europe. Plaintiff testified that Commander Cruise had promised to marry her, assuring her that he was procuring a divorce from the defendant. The testimony established that plaintiff later came to Rhode Island and lived with Commander Cruise while Mrs. Cruise remained with her five children in Florida. Plaintiff claimed that Commander Cruise was the father of a son born to her after she came to the United States but there was no evidence to support her claim other than her own testimony. Plaintiff followed Commander Cruise to Virginia Beach where he was temporarily stationed and then to northern Virginia, during which period she wrote Commander Cruise countless love letters and postcards. The illicit relationship between Commander Cruise and the plaintiff continued. There was evidence to show that plaintiff met Mrs. Cruise under the false pretext that she was a service wife also and later when she represented herself as a laundress. During this time Mrs. Cruise was completely unaware of the relationship existing between her husband and the plaintiff. Later plaintiff told Mrs. Cruise about her relationship with Commander Cruise obviously in the hope that Mrs. Cruise would leave her husband. Mrs. Cruise left for a short period to think things over but after consulting with her pastor and perhaps others decided to keep the family together and returned to her home. There was evidence to show that the plaintiff, through devious means, ascertained the addresses of Commander Cruise's sisters and brother-in-law, his mother and Mrs. Cruise's mother, and proceeded to call them and to write to some of them. It was asserted that plaintiff contacted, wrote to and visited Navy personnel attached to the same squadron as Commander Cruise, that when Commander Cruise and his family were transferred to the Washington area plaintiff followed them there, that she would follow the family to church, that she would wait for the Commander in the mornings when he was on his way to work in Arlington, Virginia, and that she would follow him.
Two large envelopes containing letters and cards were offered in evidence by Mrs. Cruise while plaintiff's case was in progress. Letters addressed to Commander Cruise, broadly classified as love letters, and other letters addressed to relatives of the Commander advising them of the birth of a baby which she claimed was fathered by the Commander were admittedly written by Mrs. Alberti. On cross-examination, she denied sending a series of cards presented to her and denied that she waited for the Commander when he went to work or that she had ever parked in his driveway.
At the close of the case the court gave an oral statement from the bench as shown in the marginal note below.1 The formal injunction order later entered was, in pertinent part, as follows:
As stated, the court granted a temporary restraining order pending the disposition of the litigation. Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part as follows:
"In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon * * *; and in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action. * * *."
On its face, Rule 52(a) would appear to apply only to interlocutory injunctions. However, it has been held that the language of the Rule "in all actions tried upon the facts without a jury * * *" encompasses suits in which permanent injunctions are issued. Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc., 213 F.2d 122, 130 (3 Cir. 1954). See 5 Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 52.07, p. 2668 (2d ed. 1966) (1966 Supp.). However, there were no findings of fact or statements of conclusions of law in connection with the announcement of the temporary restraining order.
Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:
"Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
PERRY-BEY v. CITY OF NORFOLK, VA.
...and the City of Norfolk cannot be held in contempt for violating a permanent injunction that does not exist. See Alberti v. Cruise, 383 F.2d 268, 271-72 (4th Cir.1967) (finding no injunction existed and noting that the Rule 65(d) injunction language requirements "are mandatory and must be o......
-
International Union, United Auto., Aerospace, Agr. and Implement Workers of America v. Dana Corp.
...process and lead to an unfair election. Without findings to this effect, a prior restraint cannot be justified. See Alberti v. Cruise, 383 F.2d 268 (4th Cir. 1967). Third, a prior restraint must not sweep too broadly. I agree with Dana that the District Court's injunction is fatally overbro......
-
Galella v. Onassis
...224 F.Supp. 731, 738 (S.D.Iowa 1964). Equity will not enjoin torts55 where the remedy at law is adequate, as it often is. Alberti v. Cruise, 383 F.2d 268 (4th Cir.1967); Kessler v. General Services Administration, 236 F. Supp. 693 (S.D.N.Y.) aff'd, 341 F.2d 275 (2d In Clemons v. Board of Ed......
-
In re Homaidan
...R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). When courts do not meet these standards, their orders do not withstand appellate scrutiny. See Alberti v. Cruise , 383 F.2d 268, 272 (4th Cir. 1967) (concluding that "there was not sufficient compliance with Rule 65(d). The court stated no valid reason for the issuance ......