Pennsylvania injunctions: five days, or the order dissolves itself

Pennsylvania Rule 1531 does not put a fourteen-day life on an injunction granted without notice. It puts a five-day life on the court's obligation to hold a hearing, and if that hearing does not happen the order ends on its own.

Five days, and no motion required

Rule 1531(d):

An injunction granted without notice to the defendant shall be deemed dissolved unless a hearing on the continuance of the injunction is held within five days after the granting of the injunction or within such other time as the parties may agree or as the court upon cause shown shall direct.

"Deemed dissolved." Nobody has to move, and no order is needed. If the hearing does not happen inside five days, the injunction is simply gone.

Two ways to move the date: agreement of the parties, or an order of the court upon cause shown. A defendant asked to agree to an extension should understand exactly what is being given up — the automatic dissolution.

For the plaintiff, this reverses the usual pressure. In most states an applicant who obtains an ex parte order has ten or fourteen days to organize the next hearing. Here it is five, and losing the order takes no effort from the other side at all.

After that hearing, Rule 1531(e) requires a decision: "After a preliminary hearing, the court shall make an order dissolving, continuing or modifying the injunction." Three outcomes, and one of them has to be chosen.

Freedom of expression: three days, then twenty-four hours

Rule 1531(f)(1) is the sharpest timetable in any state's injunction practice:

When a preliminary or special injunction involving freedom of expression is issued, either without notice or after notice and hearing, the court shall hold a final hearing within three days after demand by the defendant. A final order shall be filed in the office of the prothonotary within twenty-four hours after the close of the hearing. If the final hearing is not held within the three-day period, or if the final order is not filed within twenty-four hours after the close of the hearing, the injunction shall be deemed dissolved.

Two deadlines, either of which dissolves the injunction if missed: three days from the defendant's demand to the final hearing, and twenty-four hours from the close of that hearing to the filing of a final order.

Note that this applies whether the injunction issued ex parte or after a full hearing. It is the subject matter, not the procedure, that triggers it.

The demand is the defendant's to make. Nothing happens automatically — but once it is made, the clock is running on the court as much as on the plaintiff.

The rest of the subsection strips the procedure down to match the speed:

When the defendant demands such a final hearing, no further pleadings shall be required and Rule 1038(b) and (c) relating to decision in a trial without and Rules 227.1 to 227.3 relating to post-trial relief shall not apply.

No further pleadings, no post-trial motions. The trial judge instead "shall file a written memorandum supporting the final order within five days after it is filed."

What the court can look at

Rule 1531(a) is broader about proof than most states are:

In determining whether a preliminary or special injunction should be granted and whether notice or a hearing should be required, the court may act on the basis of the averments of the pleadings or petition and may consider affidavits of parties or third persons or any other proof which the court may require.

Three tiers, widening: the averments of the pleadings or petition alone; affidavits of parties or third persons; and any other proof which the court may require.

The last phrase is the court's, not the applicant's. A judge can call for proof beyond what was filed before deciding either the injunction or the antecedent question of whether notice and a hearing are needed at all.

The threshold for proceeding without either is the familiar one: the court must be satisfied "that immediate and irreparable injury will be sustained before notice can be given or a hearing held."

The bond names the Commonwealth

Rule 1531(b) makes security a condition, and then specifies an obligee most practitioners would not guess:

a preliminary or special injunction shall be granted only if (1) the plaintiff files a bond in an amount fixed and with security approved by the court, naming the Commonwealth as obligee, conditioned that if the injunction is dissolved because improperly granted or for failure to hold a hearing, the plaintiff shall pay to any person injured all damages sustained by reason of granting the injunction and all legally taxable costs and fees

Three things to take from that sentence.

The Commonwealth is the obligee, not the defendant. A bond drawn in favor of the enjoined party is not the bond the rule describes.

The condition covers two failures. Damages are payable if the injunction is dissolved "because improperly granted" or for failure to hold a hearing — which is the Rule 1531(d) five-day dissolution. An applicant who simply misses the hearing is exposed on the bond, not merely deprived of the order.

And the recovery runs to "any person injured," with legally taxable costs and fees on top.

The alternative is cash: the plaintiff may instead deposit "legal tender of the United States in an amount fixed by the court" with the prothonotary, held on the same condition.

The Commonwealth, a political subdivision, and their departments, boards, commissions, instrumentalities and officers are exempt from the requirement entirely.

Adjusting the security later

The amount is not fixed for the life of the case. Rule 1535 lets any party petition, after notice and hearing, and the court may upon cause shown:

(1) increase or decrease any security which has been required; (2) strike off a bond improperly filed; or (3) permit the substitution of security and enter an exoneration of security already given.

Three distinct remedies. Striking off a bond improperly filed is the one to note alongside Rule 1531(b) — a bond that does not name the Commonwealth as obligee is a candidate.

Anyone can move, at any time

Rule 1531(c) is seven words long:

Any party may move at any time to dissolve an injunction.

No two-day notice period, no window that closes, and no limitation to the party restrained. "Any party" — so a co-defendant or an intervenor with standing in the action can move as well.

Read with the five-day rule and the expression provision, the pattern across Rule 1531 is consistent: a Pennsylvania injunction granted quickly is also easy to unwind, and several of the routes to unwinding it require nothing of the defendant but the passage of time.

A short checklist

If you are applying:

1. Book the hearing before you leave court. Five days, or the injunction is deemed dissolved.
2. Draw the bond naming the Commonwealth as obligee, or deposit cash with the prothonotary.
3. Remember the bond answers for a missed hearing, not only for an improperly granted order.
4. Be ready for the court to ask for more proof than you filed.
5. If the case touches expression, expect a three-day final hearing on demand and a final order within twenty-four hours of its close.
6. Check whether you are exempt — the Commonwealth and political subdivisions need no bond.

If you are enjoined:

1. Count five days. If no hearing is held and you have not agreed otherwise, the injunction is dissolved.
2. Think before agreeing to move the hearing date. Agreement is one of the two things that saves the order.
3. Demand a final hearing if the injunction involves freedom of expression; both deadlines then run.
4. Move to dissolve whenever you like, and check the bond — Rule 1535 allows one improperly filed to be struck off.

Where these rules live

• Pa. R. Civ. P. 1531 — Special relief. Injunctions
• Pa. R. Civ. P. 1535 — Objections to security
• Responding to a Pennsylvania complaint
• Pennsylvania preliminary objections
• Pennsylvania summary judgment
• Pennsylvania discovery deadlines

This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and what counts as an injunction "involving freedom of expression" is developed in case law this site doesn't cover.