The plaintiff brought an action for nuisance and property damage under the simplified procedure (Rule 76), seeking mandatory and injunctive relief.
At the outset of the trial, the defendants argued that the action was improperly commenced under Rule 76 because it sought injunctive relief, and asked the court to strike those claims.
The court rejected the defendants' argument, holding that Rule 76 does not preclude claims for injunctive or mandatory relief provided the action otherwise complies with the rule.
The court affirmed its equitable jurisdiction to grant such relief in simplified procedure actions and noted the defendants suffered no prejudice.
