Editor’s Note: At press time, The Herald learned that the judge had dismissed the temporary restraining order against Robbie Coward. We will have more details in Thursday’s issue if necessary.
Robbie Coward’s attorney responded to the temporary injunction ordered by Judge Michael Holt on December 30th.
The following is the written response that Coward’s attorney filed with the court. There were attachment to this filing. The only attachment being printed is the statement of Robbie Coward:
STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA COUNTY
OF DILLON
IN THE COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS
FOURTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT
In Re: Henry L “Robbie” Coward
Case Number:
2021-CP-17-00522
RETURN TO MOTION
FOR EX PARTE
TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION
NOW COMES THE APPELLANT, Henry L. “Robbie” Coward, by and through his undersigned attorneys and will show this Honorable Court as follows:
On December 11, 2021, the Town of Latta held a protest hearing for their December 7, 2021 mayoral election. A decision was rendered that same day finding Mr. Coward was not a qualified elector and thus the results were rendered invalid. On December 20, 2021, Mr. Coward filed a Notice of Appeal with this Court. On December 30, Janet Paschal, Attorney for the Town of Latta filed an Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Injunction, which was granted the same day.
“The remedy of injunction is a drastic one and should be cautiously applied only when legal rights are unlawfully invaded or legal duties are willfully or wantonly neglected.” LeFurgy v. Long Cove Club Owners Ass’n, Inc., 313 S.C. 555, 558, 443 S.E.2d 577, 579 (S.C. App. 1994). “An injunction is a drastic remedy issued by the court in its discretion to prevent irreparable harm suffered by the plaintiff.” Scratch Golf Co. v. Dunes W. Residential Golf Props., Inc., 361 S.C. 117, 121, 603 S.E.2d 905, 907 (2004). “The plaintiff’s complaint must allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for injunction and demonstrate it is reasonably necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending in the action.” Peek v. Spartanburg Reg’l Healthcare Sys., 367 S.C. 450, 454, 626 S.E.2d 34, 36 (Ct. App. 2005). “Generally, for a preliminary injunction to be granted, the plaintiff must establish that: (1) he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (2) he will likely succeed on the merits of the litigation; and (3) there is an inadequate remedy at law.” Id. at 4 454-55.
The basis for the requested injunctive relief is suspect at best and calls into question whether it was requested at the behest of the Town of the Latta. This motion is designed solely to prejudice the Appellant. No meaningful effort was made to discuss this issue with opposing counsel prior to the filing of the motion, even though opposing counsel “attempted” communication. The relief sought is redundant and superfluous given the statutory law concerning appeals of municipal elections. The relief sought is also vague and not within the scope to comply with Rule 65(d), SCRCP.
This motion is wholly unnecessary and absolutely does not satisfy the elements necessary for an injunction to be granted. It is entirely based on an affidavit (rife with inadmissible hearsay) by Rebecca Page, Town of Latta Clerk. Ms. Page states that Mr. Coward requested that a name plate be ordered for him, that he planned to attend town council meetings, and that he planned to be sworn in as Town of Latta Mayor. No other affidavits were presented. No other evidence was presented that showed there was a chance that Mr. Coward would have been sworn, had he attempted.
Additionally, there is an adequate remedy at law. It is contained within the Code of Laws of South Carolina. Once a municipal election is appealed, all other actions in regards to that election are stayed. “
From all accounts, no action other than those described in Ms. Page’s affidavit were taken. No one, including Mr. Coward, had the intention of seeing him sworn in as mayor of the Town of Latta. See Exhibit A. That simply does not rise to some looming irreparable harm that necessitates an ex parte injunction.
The notice of appeal shall act as a stay of further proceedings pending the appeal.” S.C. Code Ann. § 5-15-140 (2012). If Mr. Coward was sworn in and had acted as mayor,
2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED – 2022 Jan 06 12:28 PM – DILLON – COMMON PLEAS – CASE#2021CP1700522
all those involved would be in violation of S.C. Code § 7-25-190, a felony, from which they all
would be prosecuted. Mr. Coward is aware of these statutes. See Exhibit A.
The ONLY entity that has the ability to recognize a mayor’s authority and allow them to act on that authority is the Town of Latta. It is redundant for the Town of Latta to ask the Court to order an injunction to prevent the Town of Latta from recognizing Mr. Coward as mayor. The language of the injunction only prevents Mr. Coward (and not the Town) from actions that do not equate to actual effectual governance over the Town. Mr. Coward could be in contempt of this injunction if he were to hold a “ceremonial win” in the comfort of his own home and have someone swear him in as Mayor of the Town of Latta as a lark! That is absurd and unnecessary. Certainly counsel for the Town can
advise her clients to not violate the law and that is sufficient. Our
election code provides an
adequate remedy at law, which Mr. Coward is aware and has no intentions of violating.
This would have been quickly and easily resolved had counsel for the Town taken adequate
measures to contact opposing party. The Rules require total candor towards the tribunal, especially
in ex parte matters. It is stated in the motion that, “the undersigned, prior to filing this Motion,
emailed counsel for Mr. Coward to ask for his assurance Mr. Coward did not intend to take the
above stated actions but no response has been received and thus consultation has served no useful
purpose but was attempted in compliance with the rules of court.” That is simply not true. An
email from Attorney Paschal was sent at 5:14 P.M. (after the close of business) on December 29,
2021 to Attorney Cockrell. See Exhibit B. Attorney Cockrell responded in kind at 11:41 P.M. on
December 30, 2021 requesting to speak to Attorney Paschal. See Exhibit C. The executed
injunction was electronically filed at 2:59 P.M. on Dec 30, 2021. Attorney Cockrell received no
follow up communication before the filing. Communication served “no useful purpose” because
counsel for the Town did not give opposing counsel any meaningful time to respond; further
3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED – 2022 Jan 06 12:28 PM – DILLON – COMMON PLEAS – CASE#2021CP1700522
showing counsel for the Town has created the emergency from which a response or assistance was
supposedly needed by this Court. This matter could have been resolved even after the execution
of the injunction and prior to Attorney Paschal’s electronic filing had she returned communication
with Attorney Cockrell.
This injunction should not have been granted. There was no admissible evidence of an
irreparable harm because the harm was impossible to commit. The party seeking the injunction
would have had to harm themselves. There is no evidence in the record that shows any of the
fearful actions alleged would have even been attempted by the parties necessary to achieve them.
Moreover, ALL parties were aware of the remedy at law here, the statute (penal in nature)
forbidding the actions alleged. The knowledge of this was willfully ignored by counsel and
misconstrued to this Court to achieve the goal of prejudicing Mr. Coward in his attempts to
maintain the will of the citizens of Latta. For these reasons, Appellant respectfully request that his
Honorable Court rescind this injunction and strike it from the record so that Mr. Coward may not
be further prejudiced in his attempt to seek the voices of the citizens of Latta are not ignored.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
4
ELECTRONICALLY FILED – 2022 Jan 06 12:28 PM – DILLON – COMMON PLEAS – CASE#2021CP1700522
Florence, South Carolina January 6, 2022
5
Respectfully submitted,
/s/M. W. Cockrell, III M. W. Cockrell, III Bar No.: 69417 COCKRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 157 Main Street Chesterfield, South Carolina 29709 Phone: (843) 623-5911 Fax: (843) 623-5700
/s/Wallace H. Jordan, Jr. Wallace H. Jordan, Jr. Bar No: 76222 WALLACE H. JORDAN, JR., P.C. Post Office Box 2010 626 West Evans Street Florence, South Carolina 29503-2010 Phone: (843) 662-4474 Fax: (843) 662-6024 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED – 2022 Jan 06 12:28 PM – DILLON – COMMON PLEAS – CASE#2021CP1700522
