Property Owner Entitled to Permanent Injunction vs. Crown Castle, 11th Circuit Told

RJ’s International Trading asserts U.S. District Court for Southern Florida erred when it denied the property owner’s motion for a permanent injunction enjoining Crown Castle South from digging long trenches beyond its easement, filling them with fiber cables and disrupting “the land surface above,” said RJ’s opening appellant's brief Friday (docket 23-10453) in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The excavation for the trenches resulted in uneven surfaces and flooding in the parking lot, preventing RJ’s from developing the property for a high-rise, multi-use project, it said.

A jury awarded RJ’s about $40,000 in compensatory damages for its breach-of-easement and trespass claims against Crown Castle South, but no punitive damages, said the brief. The district court wrongly concluded the monetary damages were an adequate remedy at law sufficient to deny RJ’s the injunction, it said. Since RJ’s didn’t recover any damages for the harm caused by nonparty and “joint tortfeasor” Crown Castle Fiber, RJ’s can’t “enjoy a double recovery,” it said. Crown Castle South’s responding brief is due Aug. 21.

RJ’s also wants the 11th Circuit to declare any injunction will be “enforceable” against Crown Castle Fiber based on its actions in trespassing on RJ’s property “for the purpose of digging the fiber optic trenches,” said the brief. Crown Castle Fiber’s conduct made it a person acting in active concert or participation with Crown Castle South within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it said.

RJ’s insists a permanent injunction is warranted because it’s suffering “irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law,” said the brief. It also argues “equitable considerations such as the public interest and balancing of hardships do not weigh against issuance of an injunction,” it said. It further argues the 11th Circuit “has the power to enjoin Crown Castle Fiber because it is in privity” with Crown Castle South, it said.

Crown Castle South, by contrast, argues the jury’s damages award demonstrates RJ’s “has not suffered irreparable harm and has already obtained an adequate remedy at law,” said the brief. The defendant also argues a permanent injunction isn’t warranted, based on consideration of the public interest and the balance of hardships between the parties, it said. It says RJ’s didn’t establish that the 11th Circuit can enjoin nonparty Crown Castle Fiber.

RJ’s insists it satisfied the irreparable harm element of a permanent injunction where the conduct to be enjoined is Crown Castle South’s “permanent alteration” of RJ’s real property “by having dug long trenches outside of its easement filling them with fiber optic cables and disrupting the land surface above,” said the brief. If recovery of some monetary damages against a defendant is an adequate remedy at law sufficient to deny a permanent injunction, “the circumstances of this case support injunctive relief nonetheless,” it said. That’s because RJ’s didn’t recover any damages for the harm caused by nonparty Crown Castle Fiber, so RJ’s can’t “enjoy a double recovery,” it said.

The jury damages awarded were only those for harms caused by Crown Castle South, "and not those separate damages caused by Crown Castle Fiber,” said the brief: “The award of damages caused by one entity cannot be an adequate remedy for monetary damages caused by another entity.” The award of injunctive relief enforceable against Crown Castle Fiber wouldn’t be a double recovery “because the cost of enforcement of the mandatory injunction compelling Crown Castle Fiber to remove the fiber optic cables would not be visited upon Crown Castle South, the entity paying the small damages award found by the jury,” it said.

The prohibition against double recovery “is obviously intended to protect a defendant from having to answer to two forms of relief,” said the brief. But “no such danger” would be present “to the extent that the injunction were tailored to be enforceable against Crown Castle Fiber, not against the party that already has been held liable for monetary damages,” it said. There’s no double recovery, “so the order on appeal should be reversed insofar as it is based upon that determination,” it said.