Allen v. Hotel & Restaurant etc. Alliance

In Allen v. Hotel & Restaurant etc. Alliance (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 343, the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction based upon their contention that they had been expelled from defendant union without due process. The trial court's order, quite similar in many respects to the instant case, provided, in relevant part, as follows: "Defendants are ordered to desist and refrain 'from doing or attempting to do any of the following described acts alleged to have been done by plaintiffs, or any of them, prior to December 30, 1947.' . . . ". . . . "'(2) From expelling or purporting to expel plaintiffs, or any of them, from defendant union . . . "'(3) From giving effect in any way or by any means whatsoever to the purported orders of expulsion against plaintiffs . . . and said orders of expulsion for the purposes of this order are hereby declared to be suspended. ". . . . "'(5) From refusing to accept dues . . . from plaintiffs . . . upon the same terms and conditions as all other members in good standing of defendant union. The purpose of this provision is to restore plaintiffs to the membership and dues status they enjoyed in said Unions prior to the purported expulsion orders of December 30, 1947, and to protect their property rights and benefits in the Union.'" (97 Cal.App.2d at pp. 345-346.) The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, explaining: "'an injunction lies only to prevent threatened injury and has no application to wrongs which have been completed, for the redress of which a party is relegated to an action at law. Clearly, such wrongs cannot be corrected by a temporary injunction, the usual purpose of which is to preserve conditions as they are until after trial and judgment, although the facts may be such as to entitle the complainant to permanent relief.'" (97 Cal.App.2d at p. 347.) The Allen court further held that a court cannot by preliminary injunction decide the merits of the underlying action. The court stated as follows: "'The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. It merely determines that the court, balancing the respective equities of the parties, concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or that he should not be restrained from exercising the rights claimed by him. When the cause is finally tried, it may be found that the facts require a decision against the party prevailing on the preliminary application.'