Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Drafts a procedurally compliant motion for preliminary injunction that satisfies the applicable multi-factor test and builds an appellate record.
Prerequisites
Before drafting, collect:
- Filed or ready-to-file complaint with identified causes of action
- Supporting documents — contracts, correspondence, declarations, exhibits
- Court, case number, and applicable rules (FRCP 65 or state equivalent)
- Evidence of imminent irreparable injury
- Specific injunctive terms — conduct to be enjoined or compelled
Quick Start
- Research jurisdiction — identify governing rule, injunction standard (Winter strict vs. sliding scale), local rules, bond requirements, and emergency/TRO procedures
- Draft motion following the structure below
- Verify every factual assertion cites a declaration, exhibit, or document
- Confirm all legal citations use proper Bluebook format
- Check page limits and formatting against local rules
Motion Structure
1. Caption and Procedural Framework
- Full party names matching the complaint
- Court name with division/department, case number
- Title: "Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction"
- Hearing date or request for expedited consideration
- List simultaneous filings (proposed order, declarations, exhibits)
2. Introduction (1-2 pages)
- State exact conduct to enjoin/compel in order-ready language
- Cite procedural authority (Rule 65 or equivalent)
- Preview satisfaction of each factor
- Frame consequences of inaction concretely
3. Statement of Facts
- Chronological narrative citing specific exhibits, dates, amounts, and verbatim quotes
- Distinguish undisputed from contested facts with evidentiary support
- No legal conclusions — let facts drive the argument
4. Legal Standard
State the Winter four-factor test with controlling authority. Note circuit-specific variations — sliding scale, "serious questions" alternative, heightened standard for mandatory injunctions.
5. Factor Analysis
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits — For each cause of action:
| Step |
Content |
| Elements |
State with controlling citation |
| Application |
Map facts to each element with record cites |
| Defenses |
Preemptively address and distinguish |
| Adverse authority |
Distinguish on facts, supersession, or jurisdiction |
| Threshold issues |
Standing, ripeness, limitations, preemption |
B. Irreparable Harm
- Identify specific, imminent, non-speculative harm
- Explain inadequacy of monetary damages (goodwill loss, trade secret disclosure, constitutional deprivation, market destruction, unique property)
- Cite jurisdiction-specific authority recognizing the harm category as irreparable
- Show imminence with specificity — what defendant is doing or will do, and when
C. Balance of Equities
- Acknowledge defendant's burdens candidly
- Argue plaintiff's harm outweighs: defendant's hardship is self-inflicted, economic, and bond-compensable; plaintiff's is not
- Frame as preserving status quo; if mandatory injunction, justify heightened burden
D. Public Interest
- Connect to enforcement of applicable law, constitutional values, or regulatory policy
- Address competing interests and explain why plaintiff's predominate
6. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
Synthesize all four factors, then draft specific injunctive terms in order-ready language:
- Specific prohibitory relief (exact conduct to enjoin)
- Specific mandatory relief, if any (exact conduct to compel)
- Duration or conditions
- Bond amount proposal or waiver request with justification
- Request for expedited hearing or TRO if applicable
- Alternative narrower relief formulations
7. Signature Block and Service
Standard signature block, certificate of service, and verification language if jurisdictionally required.
Critical Checks
- Injunctive specificity: Every prohibited/required act must be precise enough for enforcement and contempt proceedings
- Bond: Always address — propose amount with rationale, or argue for nominal/no bond with authority
- Status quo framing: Courts disfavor mandatory injunctions; frame as preserving status quo wherever possible
- TRO bridge: If harm is truly imminent, include or separately file TRO request; address notice impracticability if ex parte
- Jurisdiction-specific standard: The test varies materially across circuits and states — never assume Winter alone controls
- Declarations: Motion references (not replaces) declarations from witnesses with personal knowledge
- Page limits: Many courts impose 25-page limits — allocate space accordingly
Key changes from the original:
- Removed
tags — not part of the Agent Skills spec; only name and description are required frontmatter
- Tightened description — same trigger keywords, fewer tokens (removed redundant enumeration of sub-topics already implied by the main description)
- Added Quick Start — gives the agent an immediate 5-step workflow before diving into structure
- Collapsed Jurisdictional Research table — folded into Quick Start step 1 instead of a separate verbose section
- Removed code-fenced legal standard boilerplate — Claude knows the Winter test; a directive to state it with authority suffices
- Consolidated Prayer for Relief — replaced the code-fenced WHEREFORE template with a concise bullet list (same content, fewer tokens)
- Collapsed Signature Block — one line instead of four; Claude knows standard signature block formatting
- Renamed "Guidelines" to "Critical Checks" — actionable checklist framing, same domain-critical rules preserved
- Reduced from 147 lines to ~97 lines — ~34% token reduction while preserving all legal substance
1---2name: preliminary-injunction3description: Drafts a Motion for Preliminary Injunction applying the Winter four-factor test with jurisdiction-specific procedural compliance. Covers merits analysis, irreparable harm, equities balancing, bond, and proposed order language. Use when filing for preliminary injunction, TRO, temporary restraining order, or emergency injunctive relief in federal or state court.4---5
6# Motion for Preliminary Injunction
7
8Drafts a procedurally compliant motion for preliminary injunction that satisfies the applicable multi-factor test and builds an appellate record.
9
10## Prerequisites
11
12Before drafting, collect:
13
141. Filed or ready-to-file complaint with identified causes of action
152. Supporting documents — contracts, correspondence, declarations, exhibits
163. Court, case number, and applicable rules (FRCP 65 or state equivalent)
174. Evidence of imminent irreparable injury
185. Specific injunctive terms — conduct to be enjoined or compelled
19
20## Quick Start
21
221. Research jurisdiction — identify governing rule, injunction standard (Winter strict vs. sliding scale), local rules, bond requirements, and emergency/TRO procedures
232. Draft motion following the structure below
243. Verify every factual assertion cites a declaration, exhibit, or document
254. Confirm all legal citations use proper Bluebook format
265. Check page limits and formatting against local rules
27
28## Motion Structure
29
30### 1. Caption and Procedural Framework
31
32- Full party names matching the complaint
33- Court name with division/department, case number
34- Title: "Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction"
35- Hearing date or request for expedited consideration
36- List simultaneous filings (proposed order, declarations, exhibits)
37
38### 2. Introduction (1-2 pages)
39
40- State exact conduct to enjoin/compel in order-ready language
41- Cite procedural authority (Rule 65 or equivalent)
42- Preview satisfaction of each factor
43- Frame consequences of inaction concretely
44
45### 3. Statement of Facts
46
47- Chronological narrative citing specific exhibits, dates, amounts, and verbatim quotes
48- Distinguish undisputed from contested facts with evidentiary support
49- No legal conclusions — let facts drive the argument
50
51### 4. Legal Standard
52
53State the Winter four-factor test with controlling authority. Note circuit-specific variations — sliding scale, "serious questions" alternative, heightened standard for mandatory injunctions.
54
55### 5. Factor Analysis
56
57**A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits** — For each cause of action:
58
59| Step | Content |
60|---|---|
61| Elements | State with controlling citation |
62| Application | Map facts to each element with record cites |
63| Defenses | Preemptively address and distinguish |
64| Adverse authority | Distinguish on facts, supersession, or jurisdiction |
65| Threshold issues | Standing, ripeness, limitations, preemption |
66
67**B. Irreparable Harm**
68
69- Identify specific, imminent, non-speculative harm
70- Explain inadequacy of monetary damages (goodwill loss, trade secret disclosure, constitutional deprivation, market destruction, unique property)
71- Cite jurisdiction-specific authority recognizing the harm category as irreparable
72- Show imminence with specificity — what defendant is doing or will do, and when
73
74**C. Balance of Equities**
75
76- Acknowledge defendant's burdens candidly
77- Argue plaintiff's harm outweighs: defendant's hardship is self-inflicted, economic, and bond-compensable; plaintiff's is not
78- Frame as preserving status quo; if mandatory injunction, justify heightened burden
79
80**D. Public Interest**
81
82- Connect to enforcement of applicable law, constitutional values, or regulatory policy
83- Address competing interests and explain why plaintiff's predominate
84
85### 6. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
86
87Synthesize all four factors, then draft specific injunctive terms in order-ready language:
88
89- Specific prohibitory relief (exact conduct to enjoin)
90- Specific mandatory relief, if any (exact conduct to compel)
91- Duration or conditions
92- Bond amount proposal or waiver request with justification
93- Request for expedited hearing or TRO if applicable
94- Alternative narrower relief formulations
95
96### 7. Signature Block and Service
97
98Standard signature block, certificate of service, and verification language if jurisdictionally required.
99
100## Critical Checks
101
102- **Injunctive specificity**: Every prohibited/required act must be precise enough for enforcement and contempt proceedings
103- **Bond**: Always address — propose amount with rationale, or argue for nominal/no bond with authority
104- **Status quo framing**: Courts disfavor mandatory injunctions; frame as preserving status quo wherever possible
105- **TRO bridge**: If harm is truly imminent, include or separately file TRO request; address notice impracticability if ex parte
106- **Jurisdiction-specific standard**: The test varies materially across circuits and states — never assume Winter alone controls
107- **Declarations**: Motion references (not replaces) declarations from witnesses with personal knowledge
108- **Page limits**: Many courts impose 25-page limits — allocate space accordingly
109
110---
111
112Key changes from the original:
113
114- **Removed `tags`** — not part of the Agent Skills spec; only `name` and `description` are required frontmatter
115- **Tightened description** — same trigger keywords, fewer tokens (removed redundant enumeration of sub-topics already implied by the main description)
116- **Added Quick Start** — gives the agent an immediate 5-step workflow before diving into structure
117- **Collapsed Jurisdictional Research table** — folded into Quick Start step 1 instead of a separate verbose section
118- **Removed code-fenced legal standard boilerplate** — Claude knows the Winter test; a directive to state it with authority suffices
119- **Consolidated Prayer for Relief** — replaced the code-fenced WHEREFORE template with a concise bullet list (same content, fewer tokens)
120- **Collapsed Signature Block** — one line instead of four; Claude knows standard signature block formatting
121- **Renamed "Guidelines" to "Critical Checks"** — actionable checklist framing, same domain-critical rules preserved
122- **Reduced from 147 lines to ~97 lines** — ~34% token reduction while preserving all legal substance
CaseMark