Injunction Against Further Leafletting by Union Organizer at CEO’s Front Door

From Silva-Steele v. Enghouse, decided Thursday by the N.M. Court of Appeals, Judge Jennifer Attrep, joined by Judges Megan Duffy and Katherine Wray:

Defendant Adrienne Enghouse appeals a district court order permanently enjoining her from entering Plaintiff Jamie Silva-Steele’s private, residential property. Silva-Steele initiated this case after Enghouse left a flyer, related to unionization efforts, at Silva-Steele’s residence….

Before the incident giving rise to the injunction, Enghouse was attempting to unionize the employees of a hospital at which Silva-Steele serves as president and CEO. As part of her organizing activities, Enghouse leafleted Silva-Steele’s neighborhood with informational flyers, leaving one at Silva-Steele’s front door. {There does not appear to be any dispute that, because Silva-Steele’s property was unposted at that time, Enghouse did not trespass on Silva-Steele’s property when she left the flyer. The next day, however, Silva-Steele posted non-solicitation signs at her residence.}

In response, Silva-Steele filed a verified application for a restraining order in district court. Silva-Steele alleged in the application that Enghouse had “crossed the line by showing up at [her] house, and leaving … propaganda behind,” causing her to “fear for [her] safety and the safety of [her] family.” In relevant part, Silva-Steele asked the district court to order Enghouse to stay away from her home….

[At a hearing, c]ounsel for Enghouse admitted that Enghouse would be committing criminal trespass if she reentered Silva-Steele’s property. Nevertheless, Enghouse, through counsel, refused to agree not to enter Silva-Steele’s property in the future. After the hearing, the district court … found, “Enghouse … refused to acknowledge that the criminal trespass laws prohibit her from entering … Silva-Steele’s property and testified that she intended to return to the property in the future.” The court concluded, “Immediate and irreparable harm will result from … Enghouse’s actions unless she is permanently restrained and enjoined from entering … Silva-Steele’s private residential property.” The district court thus permanently enjoined “Enghouse from entering the private property of … Silva-Steele for any purpose.” …

The court concluded an injunction was authorized, despite the New Mexico Anti-Injunction Act:

The Anti-Injunction Act provides, “No court … shall have jurisdiction to issue a permanent injunction … in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, within the state,” except after making certain findings:

1. that unlawful acts have been threatened or committed and will be executed or continued unless restrained;
2. that substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will follow unless the relief requested is granted; [and]
3. that complainant has no adequate remedy at law.

The first required finding under the Anti-Injunction Act is that “unlawful acts have been threatened or committed and will be executed or continued unless restrained.” … Silva-Steele sent “an email to … Enghouse telling her that she was not welcome on the property and that any further attempt to do so would be considered a trespass, [and] Silva-Steele and her husband … posted non-solicitation signs at their residence.” Notwithstanding Silva-Steele’s actions, “Enghouse refuses to stay away from … Silva-Steele’s family home, has stated again that she intends to go back there and that she has a right to do so. In other words, she plans to intentionally trespass on … Silva-Steele’s personal family residence in the future.”

It is a crime in New Mexico to “knowingly enter[ ] or remain[ ] upon the unposted lands of another knowing that such consent to enter or remain is denied or withdrawn by the owner or occupant thereof.” In light of Enghouse’s intent to commit criminal trespass of Silva-Steele’s property, as found by the district court, Subsection 50-3-1(A) of the Anti-Injunction Act is plainly met.

The second required finding under the Anti-Injunction Act is that “substantial and irreparable injury to [the] complainant’s property will follow unless the relief requested is granted.” … [The district court concluded:]

The interest to be protected is … Silva-Steele and her family’s right to the legitimate and private use and enjoyment of their home, and to be free from unwanted intrusions by … Enghouse.

New Mexico’s recognition that a citizen has the right to be free from unwarranted intrusions onto private property is further embodied in its criminal trespass statute.

[A] trespass is an unauthorized entry onto another’s property that disrupts the property owner’s exclusive possession of the property…. Enghouse intends to trespass on … Silva-Steele’s property in the future even though permission has been expressly denied and non-solicitation signs have been posted.

Silva-Steele and her family have the right to be free from interference and harassment by … Enghouse, and to the fully protected use and enjoyment of their home.

[There is an] ongoing threat that [Enghouse] will criminally trespass onto [Silva-Steele’s] residential property should she desire to do so.

The injury with which … Silva-Steele is threatened is irreparable.

Immediate and irreparable harm will result from … Enghouse’s actions unless she is permanently restrained and enjoined from entering … Silva-Steele’s private residential property.

In light of these unchallenged findings and conclusions, [the substantial and irreparable injury element] of the Anti-Injunction Act is met.

The third required finding under the Anti-Injunction Act is that “[the] complainant has no adequate remedy at law.” Related to this point, the district court made several findings and conclusions:

Silva-Steele is not seeking monetary damages but only wants to stop the unwarranted interference of her right to the use and possession of her private residential property. Recovery of monetary damages would be wholly inadequate in this case and would only lead to a multiplicity of lawsuits out of repeated acts of trespass by … Enghouse.

Because … Enghouse has announced her intention to continue to trespass on … Silva-Steele’s private property in the future, equity must interfere and grant relief.

New Mexico courts have long held that injunctions are warranted when a defendant threatens repeated trespasses which would necessarily involve plaintiff in a multiplicity of suits…. Therefore, injunctive relief is appropriate.

Neither money nor criminal penalties can fully redress the rights that … Silva-Steele seeks to protect. There is no adequate remedy at law unless injunctive relief is granted.

Silva-Steele has suffered and will continue to suffer an irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

Enghouse—for good reason—makes no contention that threats of repeated trespass can be remedied by damages or are otherwise insufficient to support the issuance of an injunction….

And the court also rejected Enghouse’s First Amendment argument:

Enghouse simply cites federal case law for the general proposition that “peaceful pamphleteering” is constitutionally protected. Although Enghouse’s general contention is unobjectionable, it is not helpful to her. As Silva-Steele notes, Enghouse “fails to recognize that the constitutional balance weighs differently in circumstances involving the delivery of otherwise protected speech to an unwilling recipient in the recipient’s own home.” Cf. Rowan v. U.S. Post Off. Dep’t (1970) (concluding that the First Amendment does not protect a right to force unwanted speech, through mailers, into a person’s home). Enghouse does not respond to this point, nor does she otherwise explain how the prohibition against distributing leaflets at Silva-Steele’s private residence, after permission has been expressly denied, amounts to a First Amendment violation….

Linda M. Vanzi and Edward Ricco (Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.) represent the CEO.