MBE Rules · Remedies
Mandatory Injunctions
Mandatory vs. prohibitory injunctions
The rule
Mandatory injunctions compelling affirmative acts are disfavored, require a clearer showing, and — unlike prohibitory injunctions — are automatically stayed by appeal in California.
In plain English
Mandatory injunctions require a party to take specific actions rather than just refrain from doing something. Because they compel affirmative acts, courts are more cautious in granting them, needing a stronger justification compared to prohibitory injunctions. In California, if a mandatory injunction is issued, it is automatically stayed during the appeal process.
Worked example
A property owner is ordered to remove a fence that encroaches on a neighbor's land, which is a mandatory injunction. The property owner appeals the decision, and under California law, the enforcement of the order to remove the fence is automatically stayed during the appeal. Therefore, the property owner does not have to comply with the injunction while the appeal is pending.
Memory hook
Mandatory means more than just 'no'; it demands action and is harder to get.
The trap
Exams may confuse students by presenting scenarios where a prohibitory injunction is mistakenly treated like a mandatory one. Students often overlook the heightened burden of proof required for mandatory injunctions.
How examiners test it
Questions typically involve a factual scenario where a party seeks to compel action, prompting candidates to analyze the necessity and justification for a mandatory injunction versus a prohibitory one.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.