casemark/preliminary-injunction

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Drafts a procedurally compliant motion for preliminary injunction that satisfies the applicable multi-factor test and builds an appellate record.

Prerequisites

Before drafting, collect:

1. Filed or ready-to-file complaint with identified causes of action
2. Supporting documents — contracts, correspondence, declarations, exhibits
3. Court, case number, and applicable rules (FRCP 65 or state equivalent)
4. Evidence of imminent irreparable injury
5. Specific injunctive terms — conduct to be enjoined or compelled

Quick Start

1. Research jurisdiction — identify governing rule, injunction standard (Winter strict vs. sliding scale), local rules, bond requirements, and emergency/TRO procedures
2. Draft motion following the structure below
3. Verify every factual assertion cites a declaration, exhibit, or document
4. Confirm all legal citations use proper Bluebook format
5. Check page limits and formatting against local rules

Motion Structure

1. Caption and Procedural Framework

• Full party names matching the complaint
• Court name with division/department, case number
• Title: "Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction"
• Hearing date or request for expedited consideration
• List simultaneous filings (proposed order, declarations, exhibits)

2. Introduction (1-2 pages)

• State exact conduct to enjoin/compel in order-ready language
• Cite procedural authority (Rule 65 or equivalent)
• Preview satisfaction of each factor
• Frame consequences of inaction concretely

3. Statement of Facts

• Chronological narrative citing specific exhibits, dates, amounts, and verbatim quotes
• Distinguish undisputed from contested facts with evidentiary support
• No legal conclusions — let facts drive the argument

4. Legal Standard

State the Winter four-factor test with controlling authority. Note circuit-specific variations — sliding scale, "serious questions" alternative, heightened standard for mandatory injunctions.

5. Factor Analysis

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits — For each cause of action:

| Step | Content | |---|---| | Elements | State with controlling citation | | Application | Map facts to each element with record cites | | Defenses | Preemptively address and distinguish | | Adverse authority | Distinguish on facts, supersession, or jurisdiction | | Threshold issues | Standing, ripeness, limitations, preemption |

B. Irreparable Harm

• Identify specific, imminent, non-speculative harm
• Explain inadequacy of monetary damages (goodwill loss, trade secret disclosure, constitutional deprivation, market destruction, unique property)
• Cite jurisdiction-specific authority recognizing the harm category as irreparable
• Show imminence with specificity — what defendant is doing or will do, and when

C. Balance of Equities

• Acknowledge defendant's burdens candidly
• Argue plaintiff's harm outweighs: defendant's hardship is self-inflicted, economic, and bond-compensable; plaintiff's is not
• Frame as preserving status quo; if mandatory injunction, justify heightened burden

D. Public Interest

• Connect to enforcement of applicable law, constitutional values, or regulatory policy
• Address competing interests and explain why plaintiff's predominate

6. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief

Synthesize all four factors, then draft specific injunctive terms in order-ready language:

• Specific prohibitory relief (exact conduct to enjoin)
• Specific mandatory relief, if any (exact conduct to compel)
• Duration or conditions
• Bond amount proposal or waiver request with justification
• Request for expedited hearing or TRO if applicable
• Alternative narrower relief formulations

7. Signature Block and Service

Standard signature block, certificate of service, and verification language if jurisdictionally required.

Critical Checks

• Injunctive specificity: Every prohibited/required act must be precise enough for enforcement and contempt proceedings
• Bond: Always address — propose amount with rationale, or argue for nominal/no bond with authority
• Status quo framing: Courts disfavor mandatory injunctions; frame as preserving status quo wherever possible
• TRO bridge: If harm is truly imminent, include or separately file TRO request; address notice impracticability if ex parte
• Jurisdiction-specific standard: The test varies materially across circuits and states — never assume Winter alone controls
• Declarations: Motion references (not replaces) declarations from witnesses with personal knowledge
• Page limits: Many courts impose 25-page limits — allocate space accordingly

---

Key changes from the original:

• Removed tags — not part of the Agent Skills spec; only name and description are required frontmatter
• Tightened description — same trigger keywords, fewer tokens (removed redundant enumeration of sub-topics already implied by the main description)
• Added Quick Start — gives the agent an immediate 5-step workflow before diving into structure
• Collapsed Jurisdictional Research table — folded into Quick Start step 1 instead of a separate verbose section
• Removed code-fenced legal standard boilerplate — Claude knows the Winter test; a directive to state it with authority suffices
• Consolidated Prayer for Relief — replaced the code-fenced WHEREFORE template with a concise bullet list (same content, fewer tokens)
• Collapsed Signature Block — one line instead of four; Claude knows standard signature block formatting
• Renamed "Guidelines" to "Critical Checks" — actionable checklist framing, same domain-critical rules preserved
• Reduced from 147 lines to ~97 lines — ~34% token reduction while preserving all legal substance