A street impliedly dedicated is subject not to ownership, but to a servitude of use. Hailey v. Panno, 472 So.2d 97 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1985); Becnel v. Citrus Lands of Louisiana, Inc., 429 So.2d 459 (La.App. 4 Cir.), writ denied, 437 So.2d 1147 (La. 1983).
4 Cir. 10/03/01); 804 So.2d 78, reversed on other grounds, 02-0485 (La. 4/24/02); 814 So.2d 1289; Barrilleaux v. NPC, Inc., 97-2040 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/29/97); 704 So.2d 449, writ denied, 99-1002 (La. 05/28/99); 743 So.2d 672; Hailey v. Panno, 472 So.2d 97 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1985)). Irreparable injury is that which “cannot be undone through monetary damages.”
Under Louisiana law, a predial servitude runs with the land and is inseparable from the dominant estate. Textron Fin. Corp. v. Retif Oil & Fuel, LLC , 342 Fed.Appx. 29, 33 (5th Cir.2009) ; Hailey v. Panno , 472 So.2d 97, 99–100 (La.Ct.App.1985). A servitude, or real right of passage, does not belong to the owner of the dominant estate but, instead, to the dominant estate itself.
Defendants further stress that personal servitudes of right of use affecting immovable property must be in writing. Langevin v. Howard, 363 So.2d 1209, 1214 (La.Ct.App. 2 Cir. 1978) writ denied 366 So.2d 560 (La. 1979); Hailey v. Panno, 472 So.2d 97, 99 (La.Ct.App. 5 Cir. 1985). The agreement between SSI and Loch Leven was not formalized in a written document, therefore it cannot be considered a right of use.
The act of dedication executed by the board, along with the recordation of the subdivision plat, constitutes substantial compliance with the procedures for dedication of property for public use under La.R.S. 33:5051. Garret v. Pioneer Production Corp., 390 So.2d 851, 856 (La. 1980); Hailey v. Panno, 472 So.2d 97, 100 (La.Ct.App. 5th Cir. 1985). Recently in Coliseum Square Ass'n v. City of New Orleans, 544 So.2d 351 (La. 1989), we held that the City of New Orleans had the legal authority to execute a long term lease of a public street that was no longer needed for public purposes.
It is well established that an applicant seeking a preliminary injunction need only make a prima facie showing that he will prevail on the merits; thus, less proof is required than in an ordinary proceeding for a permanent injunction where the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. SeeSorrento Companies, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. , 04-1884 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/23/05), 916 So.2d 1156, 1163, writ denied , 05-2326 (La. 3/17/06), 925 So.2d 541 ; State through Louisiana State Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists of the Dep't of Health and Human Services v. Atterberry , 95-0391 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/95), 664 So.2d 1216, 1220 ; and Hailey v. Panno , 472 So.2d 97, 99 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1985). Moreover, La. R.S. 23:921 contemplates that the parishes specified in the Agreement must be parishes where the ex-employer actually has a location or customers.
An applicant for a preliminary injunction need make only a prima facie showing that he will prevail on the merits; thus less proof is required than in an ordinary proceeding for permanent injunction. Hailey v. Panno, 472 So.2d 97 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1985). However, a preliminary injunction brought pursuant to La.C.C.P. Art. 3663 does not require a showing of irreparable injury. Hailey v. Panno, supra; Monroe Real Estate Development v. Sunshine Equipment Company, Inc., 35,555 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1/23/02), 805 So.2d 1200; Terre Aux Boeufs Land Company, Inc. v. J.R. Gray Barge Company, 2000-2754 (La. App. 4th Cir. 11/14/01), 803 So.2d 86, writdenied, 2001-3292 (La.3/8/02), 811 So.2d 887.
Thus, because an applicant for a preliminary injunction need make only a prima facie showing, less proof is required that in an ordinary proceeding for a permanent injunction. Gaumnitz v. Williamson, 36,177 (La.App.2d Cir. 8/14/02), 824 So.2d 531; Monroe Real Estate Dev't Co. v. Sunshine Equipment Co., 35,555 (La.App.2d Cir. 1/23/02), 805 So.2d 1200; Hailey v. Panno, 472 So.2d 97 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985). For purposes of determining whether preliminary injunction is warranted, "irreparable injury" means that the moving party cannot be adequately compensated in money damages for his injury or suffers injuries which cannot be measured by pecuniary standards.
Holmes v. Peoples State Bank of Many, 32,749 (La.App. 2d Cir. 3/3/00), 753 So.2d 1006. An applicant for a preliminary injunction need make only a prima facie showing that he will prevail on the merits; thus less proof is required than in an ordinary proceeding for permanent injunction. Hailey v. Panno, 472 So.2d 97 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985). However, a preliminary injunction brought pursuant to La.C.C.P. Art. 3663 does not require a showing of irreparable injury. Hailey v. Panno, supra; Monroe Real Estate Development v. Sunshine Equipment Company, Inc., 35,555 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1/23/02), 805 So.2d 1200 ; Terre Aux Boeufs Land Company, Inc. v. J. R. Gray Barge Company, 2000-2754 (La.App. 4th Cir. 11/14/01), 803 So.2d 86, writ denied, 2001-3292 (La. 3/8/02), 811 So.2d 887.
Wied v. TRCM, LLC, 30,106 (La.App. 2d Cir. 07/24/97), 698 So.2d 685; Louisiana Gaming Corp. v. Rob's Mini-Mart, Inc., 27,920 (La.App. 2d Cir. 01/24/96), 666 So.2d 1268. An applicant for preliminary injunction need make only a prima facie showing that he will prevail on the merits; thus, less proof is required than in an ordinary proceeding for permanent injunction. Hailey v. Panno, 472 So.2d 97 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1985). After reviewing the record before us, we conclude that the trial court erred in requiring Sunshine to demonstrate irreparable injury under the general preliminary injunction requirements and in failing to apply the provisions of La.C.C.P. art. 3663 to the analysis of the facts before it.