Sycamore Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Coosa Cable Co.
Decision Date | 30 September 2011 |
Docket Number | 1091505. |
Citation | 81 So.3d 1224 |
Parties | SYCAMORE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and DirecPath, LLC v. COOSA CABLE COMPANY, INC. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Riley W. Roby and Neah L. Mitchell of Balch & Bingham LLP, Montgomery; and Eric B. Langley and Ed R. Haden of Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, for appellants.
Henry I. Frohsin, James F. Barger, Jr., and J. Elliott Walthall of Frohsin & Barger LLC, Birmingham, for appellee.
Coosa Cable Company, Inc. (“Coosa Cable”), sued Sycamore Management Group, LLC (“Sycamore”), and DirecPath, LLC (“DirecPath”). Coosa Cable sought and obtained both a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and a preliminary injunction barring DirecPath from providing video-programming services to the tenants of an apartment building owned by Sycamore. As a condition of the TRO, Coosa Cable provided a security bond of $250. As a condition of the preliminary injunction, the trial court required Coosa Cable to provide a security bond of $100,000. After a hearing, the trial court entered a permanent injunction against Sycamore and DirecPath and discharged Coosa Cable's security bond. Sycamore and DirecPath appealed; this Court reversed the trial court's order granting permanent injunctive relief to Coosa Cable. Sycamore Mgmt. Group, LLC v. Coosa Cable Co., 42 So.3d 90 (Ala.2010) ( “ Sycamore I ”). Sycamore and DirecPath then sought to recover costs, damages, and attorney fees caused by the wrongful injunction, but the trial court denied their motion. Sycamore and DirecPath now appeal from the trial court's order denying their motion for damages under the security bond on the preliminary injunction.1 We reverse and remand.
The pertinent facts are set out in this Court's opinion in Sycamore I. “Coosa Cable is an Alabama corporation that holds a franchise to provide telecommunication services to Pell City residents, including cable television, Internet services, and Internet telephone service—including emergency 911. DirecPath is a private cable operator based in Atlanta, Georgia, that provides satellite video programming, Internet services, and digital telephone service to its subscribers. Sycamore is an Alabama limited liability company that owns and manages several apartment complexes or multi-dwelling units, including Maple Village, which is located in Pell City.
This Court held in Sycamore I:
On remand, Sycamore and DirecPath filed a motion for the recovery of wrongful-injunction damages pursuant to Rule 65.1, Ala. R. Civ. P. They requested damages for lost operating profits, depreciation expenses, attorney fees, and costs in an amount not less than the $100,000 bond posted by Coosa Cable as a condition of the preliminary injunction. Sycamore and DirecPath say that they presented evidence to substantiate their claims for damages but that Coosa Cable did not offer any evidence to rebut those claims. Instead, they say, Coosa Cable argued that because the trial court discharged the security bond when it entered the permanent injunction, there is no longer any bond from which Sycamore and DirecPath can recover damages. Coosa Cable also argued that wrongful-injunction damages cannot be recovered after the entry of a permanent injunction.
After a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Sycamore and DirecPath's motion. The trial court stated:
On appeal, this Court reviews de novo a trial court's ruling on a question of law. Lucky Jacks Entm't Ctr., LLC v. Jopat Bldg. Corp., 32 So.3d 565, 568 (Ala.2009). Because the issue presented in this case—whether damages can be awarded for a wrongful injunction if the security bond posted to secure the preliminary injunction was discharged when the permanent injunction was issued—is a legal question, we apply a de novo standard of review to the trial court's order denying the motion for damages filed by Sycamore and DirecPath, not the exceeds-its-discretion standard we would employ to review a trial court's order awarding damages for a wrongful injunction.2
Rule 65(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., states, in pertinent part:
“No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs, damages, and reasonable attorney fees as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained....
“The provisions of Rule 65.1 apply to a surety upon a bond or undertaking under this rule.”
In lieu of a traditional security bond, the trial court accepted an instrument filed with the court by Coosa Cable, which stated:
“SURETY BOND
“1. On January 15, 2009, the Court granted [Coosa Cable's] Request for Preliminary Injunction...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Devos v. Cunningham Grp., LLC
...Civil Procedure.’ Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. v. Beiersdoerfer, 989 So. 2d 1045, 1056 n. 3 (Ala. 2007)." Sycamore Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Coosa Cable Co., 81 So. 3d 1224, 1235 (Ala. 2011). ...
- Anderson v. Tate & Lyle PLC (Ex parte Tate & Lyle Sucralose, Inc.)
-
Ex parte Cooper
...the enjoined party if it is later determined that the preliminary injunction was wrongful. Sycamore Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Coosa Cable Co., 81 So.3d 1224, 1235 (Ala. 2011). The bond submitted by BCBC and approved by the trial court provides that BCBC is "bound unto the Defendant [Cooper] in the......
-
Cochran v. CIS Fin. Servs.
... ... Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. , the City of Montgomery ... ("the City") ... underlying action have been resolved. See Sycamore Mgmt ... Grp., Inc. v. Coosa Cable Co. , 81 So.3d ... ...