## Facts

- Jennings Guest House (Jennings) operated a retirement home and employed Jayme Gibson.
- Jennings terminated Gibson after concluding she stole residents’ medications and physically and verbally abused certain residents.
- After her termination, Gibson repeatedly returned to Jennings’s facility and allegedly harassed residents and staff.
- On April 5, 2007, Jennings filed a “Petition for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and/or a Temporary Restraining Order,” asking the court to order Gibson:
  - to stay away from Jennings’s property and business,
  - to stop calling the facility, and
  - to stop harassing staff and residents.
- Jennings submitted supporting affidavits, including:
  - an affidavit from the administrator describing Gibson’s alleged harassment and violent conduct, and
  - an affidavit from counsel stating that prior notice was not given because notice might cause immediate harm due to Gibson’s alleged violent temper.
- The trial court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) on the same day, and it did so without requiring a bond.
- Gibson filed a rule to dissolve the TRO and sought damages for wrongful issuance, including attorney’s fees, court costs, and damages for mental anguish and inconvenience.
- Before the scheduled hearing on Gibson’s rule, Jennings voluntarily dismissed the TRO, but the court still heard Gibson’s request for damages and fees and denied all requested relief.
- The record indicated Gibson continued working at another nursing home, and she did not show that the TRO interfered with that employment.
- Gibson appealed, challenging both the issuance of the TRO and the denial of damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting Jennings an ex parte TRO on the showing made, including whether Jennings showed that immediate and irreparable injury would occur without the TRO and whether other legal remedies had to be exhausted first.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to award Gibson damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees for wrongful issuance of the TRO, where the TRO was issued without the bond required by law.

## Decision

- Affirmed the denial of damages and attorney’s fees to Gibson.
- Reversed in part and awarded court costs to Gibson.
- Held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the ex parte TRO based on sworn allegations of harassment, prior violence, and risk of immediate harm to residents and staff.
- Rejected the argument that Jennings had to rely on criminal enforcement (e.g., trespass, assault, battery) instead of seeking injunctive relief.
- Treated the failure to require a bond as legal error and granted costs as the remedy, while leaving intact the denial of damages and attorney’s fees absent proof supporting those awards.

## Legal Principles

- A TRO may issue ex parte when the applicant shows by verified facts or supporting affidavits that immediate and irreparable injury will result before the adverse party can be heard.
- Appellate review of a trial court’s decision to issue a TRO is generally for abuse of discretion, particularly where the ruling rests on sworn allegations of threatened harm.
- The availability of criminal charges or other legal processes does not automatically bar injunctive relief; a court may find that such alternatives do not adequately prevent continued harassment or threatened violence, especially in a residential care setting.
- Louisiana procedure generally requires a bond when a TRO is issued; issuing a TRO without the required bond is error.
- Damages and attorney’s fees for wrongful issuance of a TRO are not automatic; a restrained party must show entitlement based on the TRO being improvidently issued and must prove compensable harm.
- Claims for mental-anguish damages in wrongful-injunction disputes require a strong factual showing; ordinary inconvenience or upset is not enough.
- When a TRO is issued without the bond required by law, an appellate court may award court costs to the restrained party even if damages and attorney’s fees are not proven.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Third Circuit concluded that the sworn allegations of Gibson’s post-termination harassment and prior violent conduct supported the trial court’s ex parte TRO and justified denying Gibson damages and attorney’s fees for wrongful issuance, but it awarded Gibson court costs because the TRO was issued without the bond required by Louisiana procedure.


Jennings Guest House v. Gibson, 971 So. 2d 506 (2007)