Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Atkin, Wright & Miles, Chartered
1984 Utah LEXIS 827, 681 P.2d 1258 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injunction is considered 'wrongfully issued' for the purposes of recovering on an injunction bond if the court that issued it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. State public service commissions have exclusive primary jurisdiction over public utility services, and a court's interference with such matters renders any resulting injunction wrongful.
Facts:
- In October 1980, Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co. (Mountain Bell) published a phone directory with a printing error.
- The error resulted in the telephone number for the Atkin, Wright and Miles law firm (the Atkin firm) also being listed for a competing law firm.
- After the competing firm complained, Mountain Bell placed a mechanical intercept on the shared phone line to direct callers to the correct numbers.
- The intercept informed callers of the competing firm's correct number and a newly assigned number for the Atkin firm.
Procedural Posture:
- The Atkin firm obtained a temporary restraining order, and subsequently a preliminary injunction, from the district court, compelling Mountain Bell to remove an intercept from its phone line.
- To secure the injunction, the Atkin firm posted a $25,000 bond.
- The Public Service Commission (PSC), in a separate proceeding, ordered Mountain Bell to place an intercept on the line.
- When the district court refused to dissolve its injunction, the Utah Supreme Court intervened via an extraordinary writ and vacated the injunction.
- Mountain Bell then filed this separate action in district court to recover its costs and attorney's fees on the injunction bond.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Atkin firm, preventing recovery on the bond.
- Mountain Bell (appellant) appealed the summary judgment to the Utah Supreme Court, with the Atkin firm as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a preliminary injunction considered 'wrongfully issued' for the purpose of recovering on an injunction bond if the issuing court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall, Chief Justice
Yes, a preliminary injunction is considered wrongfully issued if the issuing court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. Under Utah law, the term 'wrongfully enjoined' does not require bad faith; it simply means that the party who obtained the injunction was ultimately not entitled to it. The Utah Legislature has granted the Public Service Commission (PSC) exclusive primary jurisdiction to supervise and regulate public utilities, explicitly stripping state courts of jurisdiction to interfere with the PSC's duties. A PSC tariff, which has the force of law, establishes that a subscriber has no property right in a telephone number. Therefore, the district court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction regarding the assignment of a phone number, making the Atkin firm not entitled to the injunction and rendering it 'wrongfully issued.' The subsequent dissolution of the injunction by the Supreme Court is conclusive evidence of its wrongfulness, allowing Mountain Bell to proceed with its action on the bond.
Dissenting - Howe, Justice
No, this action should not proceed because it is procedurally improper. The dissent argues that Mountain Bell elected to make its demand on the injunction bond within the original damages action filed by the Atkin firm. By filing a 'Notice of Claim on Bond' in that prior case, Mountain Bell chose its forum. Therefore, it should be precluded from bringing this new, separate action to recover on the bond, as it had ample opportunity to pursue the claim in the original lawsuit.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, clarifying that disputes involving highly regulated industries, like public utilities, must first be brought before the appropriate administrative agency. It establishes a strict liability standard for parties obtaining injunctions, defining 'wrongful' based on the ultimate legal outcome rather than the applicant's intent. This precedent incentivizes litigants to carefully verify a court's subject matter jurisdiction before seeking injunctive relief, as obtaining an injunction from the wrong court, even in good faith, can expose them to liability for the other party's costs and damages up to the bond amount.
