Background
In August 2022, Marcos Ramos-Garcia sued Elizabeth Resto for libel based on social media posts accusing him of predatory behavior toward women. Ramos-Garcia sought an emergency temporary injunction to prevent Resto from publishing or communicating allegedly defamatory statements about him. The circuit court granted the injunction and required Ramos-Garcia to post a $5,000 bond as security.
Later, the parties agreed to stipulate on the record to vacate the injunction, and the circuit court dismissed their stipulation without ruling on the merits of whether the injunction was properly issued. Subsequently, Ramos-Garcia moved to dismiss the entire case with prejudice. Resto then sought recovery of the $5,000 bond, attorney’s fees related to the injunction proceedings, and costs under Wisconsin statute. The circuit court denied all requests.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s denial on two key grounds. First, under Wis. Stat. § 813.06, a bond must be paid to an enjoined party only when a court “finally decides” the party was not entitled to the injunction. Here, there was no final court determination because the parties stipulated to dismiss the injunction rather than obtaining a judicial ruling on its propriety. The court rejected Resto’s attempt to have the appellate court now examine the injunction’s merits, holding that by entering into a stipulation, the parties forfeited the right to challenge the injunction on appeal.
Second, under Wis. Stat. § 814.03(1), costs are available only to “prevailing” or “successful” parties. Because the case was dismissed with prejudice without any judgment entered in favor of either party, neither party qualified as prevailing, and costs were properly denied. A dismissal with prejudice does not establish one party as the victor.
Key Takeaways
- Stipulated dismissals and voluntary vacatures do not constitute final court determinations sufficient to trigger injunction bond forfeiture under Wis. Stat. § 813.06—an actual judicial ruling is required.
- Parties who agree to stipulate away an injunction cannot later appeal or challenge its propriety on appeal.
- Neither party is “prevailing” or “successful” for cost-award purposes when a case is dismissed with prejudice without a judgment for either side.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that settlements and stipulations have practical consequences beyond just ending litigation. By agreeing to dismiss an injunction rather than fighting it to a final decision, a defendant forfeits the opportunity to secure fee and cost recovery even if the injunction was improperly granted. Practitioners should understand that stipulated relief from an injunction, while ending the immediate restraint, may preclude later recovery of bond and expenses.
The ruling also reinforces that “prevailing party” status under Wisconsin’s cost statute requires an affirmative judgment for one side. A mutual dismissal with prejudice, though it may end the dispute, leaves both parties in a neutral legal position for purposes of statutory fee-shifting—neither can claim victory, and neither is entitled to costs.