DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Kirkhart
148 N.C. App. 572, 561 S.E.2d 276, 2002 N.C. App. LEXIS 60 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A preliminary injunction will only be issued if the plaintiff demonstrates both a likelihood of success on the merits of their case and a likelihood of sustaining irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. The mere possibility of having to defend against multiple lawsuits does not constitute irreparable harm.
Facts:
- H.C. Kirkhart, an attorney, represented Peter and Frances Pleskach in a lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler, alleging the company failed to disclose that the vehicle the Pleskaches purchased was a manufacturer buy-back under the state's Lemon Law.
- In the Pleskach case, Kirkhart served DaimlerChrysler with discovery requests seeking information on all vehicles it had repurchased since 1994, including owner names and addresses.
- After being compelled by a court order, DaimlerChrysler produced approximately 850 disclosure statements which contained complete vehicle identification numbers (VINs).
- Using the VINs from the disclosure statements, Kirkhart identified the current owners of other buy-back vehicles.
- Kirkhart sent letters to these subsequent purchasers to determine if they had been properly notified that their vehicles were manufacturer buy-backs.
- As a result of these letters, several owners hired Kirkhart to represent them in their own lawsuits against DaimlerChrysler.
- Kirkhart subsequently filed five new lawsuits against DaimlerChrysler on behalf of these new clients.
Procedural Posture:
- DaimlerChrysler filed a new complaint in trial court against H.C. Kirkhart and his law firm, alleging barratry, libel, tortious interference, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
- The trial court granted DaimlerChrysler's motion for a temporary restraining order, prohibiting Kirkhart from using discovery materials to solicit clients.
- The trial court subsequently converted the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction with similar prohibitions.
- Kirkhart (Defendants) filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, which the trial court denied, though it entered a modified injunction.
- Kirkhart (Appellant) appealed the trial court's order granting the preliminary injunction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. DaimlerChrysler is the Appellee.
- The Court of Appeals granted Kirkhart's petition for a writ of certiorari to provide immediate appellate review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by granting a preliminary injunction that prohibits an attorney from using information obtained through discovery in one case to solicit clients for new litigation against the same defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, J.
Yes. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary measure that requires the plaintiff to show a likelihood of success on the merits and a likelihood of irreparable loss. DaimlerChrysler failed to establish a likelihood of success on any of its five claims. The court found that North Carolina does not recognize a civil cause of action for barratry, Kirkhart's communications were protected by a qualified privilege against the libel claim, and DaimlerChrysler failed to identify any specific contracts that were interfered with for its tortious interference claims. Because the underlying claims failed, the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim also failed. Furthermore, DaimlerChrysler failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as the possibility of defending against multiple lawsuits is not a substantial injury sufficient to warrant an injunction, especially when procedural rules like Rule 11 provide protection against frivolous litigation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required for granting a preliminary injunction, particularly when it restricts an attorney's ability to communicate with potential clients. The court's analysis clarifies that the common law offense of barratry is a criminal matter and does not provide a basis for a civil lawsuit in North Carolina. The ruling also affirms that attorney communications with potential clients and witnesses, when made in good faith and concerning a matter of mutual interest, are protected by a qualified privilege against libel claims. This case establishes that the cost and inconvenience of defending multiple lawsuits, without more, does not rise to the level of irreparable harm necessary for injunctive relief.
