## Facts

- In March 1997, Samuel T. “Tim” McGraw entered into an exclusive recording agreement with Curb Records, Inc., requiring McGraw to provide his recording artist services only for Curb during the agreement’s term.
- The agreement included an initial period requiring delivery of three albums, followed by six option periods. Each option period extended the agreement and required delivery of masters sufficient for one album of customary playing time.
- After the first album, the agreement required each later album (excluding certain categories such as greatest-hits or live albums) to be delivered no earlier than 12 months and no later than 18 months after delivery of the immediately preceding album. The agreement also allowed Curb, in certain circumstances involving a greatest-hits release, to extend a delivery deadline by up to six months.
- The contract described Curb as the perpetual owner of all masters and other recordings embodying McGraw’s performances made during the term.
- McGraw delivered three albums during the initial period and one album during each of the first four option periods.
- On October 22, 2010, McGraw delivered masters for an album titled *Emotional Traffic*.
- Curb rejected *Emotional Traffic* as the album for the fifth option period, contending the songs had been recorded before the relevant option period and therefore did not satisfy the contract’s timing requirements.
- On May 13, 2011, Curb sued McGraw in the Davidson County Chancery Court, asserting contract-related claims and seeking, among other relief, an injunction preventing McGraw from recording for any other company until he provided additional contract-compliant albums (Curb claimed two more were owed).
- The parties agreed to bifurcate the case so the court would first make a final determination on whether Curb was entitled to restrain McGraw—by injunction or otherwise—from recording for entities other than Curb, with the remaining merits to be tried later.
- In the injunction phase, the chancellor considered arguments, depositions, affidavits, and documents, and—by agreement—received no live testimony.
- The parties did not dispute that McGraw’s recording services were unique and extraordinary.
- The chancery court denied Curb’s request for both temporary and permanent injunctive relief, and Curb appealed only that denial.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred (or abused its discretion) in denying temporary injunctive relief barring McGraw from recording for any entity other than Curb pending resolution of the contract dispute.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying permanent injunctive relief enforcing the agreement’s exclusivity so as to prevent McGraw from recording for others during the ongoing dispute about album-delivery obligations.
3. Whether Curb carried its burden for injunctive relief, including showing a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm not adequately remedied by money damages, and that the equities favored restraint.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court’s denial of temporary and permanent injunctive relief.
- The court stated that the appeal concerned only injunctive relief in the first, bifurcated phase, and its discussion should not be read as binding factual findings for the later merits phase.
- On the record presented, the appellate court found no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to enjoin McGraw from recording for others.

## Legal Principles

- Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy committed to the trial court’s discretion; appellate review focuses on whether the trial court committed reversible error in exercising that discretion.
- A party seeking a temporary or permanent injunction must satisfy traditional equitable requirements, including a showing of a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm for which legal remedies (such as damages) are inadequate.
- Even when a performer’s services are unique or extraordinary, that fact alone does not require a court to grant an injunction restricting the performer from working elsewhere; the requesting party must still meet the full injunction standard.
- When contract meaning and performance are sharply disputed—such as whether a delivered album qualifies under timing and option-period provisions—a court may find the requesting party has not shown the necessary likelihood of success at the injunction stage.
- If the claimed injury is largely economic (for example, loss of expected profits or value of the bargain) and can be addressed through damages after adjudication on the merits, a court may conclude irreparable harm has not been shown.

## Conclusion

In *Curb Records, Inc. v. McGraw*, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of temporary and permanent injunctive relief sought by Curb to prevent Tim McGraw from recording for others while the parties litigated whether *Emotional Traffic* satisfied McGraw’s fifth option-period album obligation under a 1997 exclusive recording agreement, holding that on the paper record and in the limited, bifurcated posture presented, Curb did not establish entitlement to the requested equitable restraint.


Curb Records, Inc. v. McGraw, 2012 WL 4377817 (2012)