« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Nationwide Injunction Should Not Issue If Circuit Split Exists

Download PDF

Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. BarryDiller Content Sys., PLC, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1141-42 (C.D. Cal. 2012):

B. Geographical Reach of Injunction Where Circuit Split Present

Courts should not issue nationwide injunctions where the injunction would not issue under the law of another circuit.

 

   Principles of comity require that, once a sister circuit has spoken to an issue, that pronouncement is the law of that geographical area. Courts in the Ninth Circuit should not grant relief that would cause substantial interference with the established judicial pronouncements  of such sister circuits. To hold otherwise would create tension between circuits and would encourage forum shopping.

United States v. AMC Entm't, Inc., 549 F.3d 760, 773 (9th Cir. 2008) (reversing grant of nationwide injunction).

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

First Impression — Removal — Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Remand Orders: Notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), Court of Appeals Has Jurisdiction to Review Remand Order Citing §1447(e) Where That Statute Is Not Actually The Basis of The Order But Prudential Considerations (Abstention) Are— § 1447(e) Cannot Serve As A Basis To Remand If The Plaintiff Is Not Seeking To Add A Party Whose Joinder Would Destroy Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Discovery Violations Should Ordinarily Be Punished Under Rules 26(g) And 37, Not Inherent Power — Sanctions Should Be Tailored Because Violations Occur Along A Continuum of Fault — Three-Factor Test to Determine Whether Sanctions For Non-Production Are Apt (Second Circuit) — Producing Some Relevant Documents Is No Excuse For Not Producing All/Producing Drafts Does Not Excuse Nonproduction of Finals (Good Quote) — There Is No Carve-Out From The Duty To Produce For Publicly-Filed Information (Good Quote) — Duty To Produce Includes Subsequently-Created Documents (Documents Created After Discovery Response) — Factors In Choosing The Appropriate Sanction — Purposes Of Discovery Sanctions — Proportionality: Need for Sanction to Be Tailored to Remedy the Prejudice Suffered

Matter of First Impression vs. Baseless Position (Good Quote)

The Answer to a Question of First Impression Is Rarely “Plain”

Administrative Closure of A Case Is A Tool of Docket Management Outside the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Used to Shelve A Pending But Dormant Matter —District Court Order Administratively Closing A Case Is Not An Appealable Final Order, But An Order Denying A Motion to Reopen Is — “A Case Is Deemed To Be Final When A District Court Disassociates Itself From A Case” (Good Quote) — Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) Does Not Confer Authority to Dismiss A Case; Other Power Must Be Invoked — Rule 41(b) Dismissal: Sixth Circuit Factors

§ 1927 Sanctions Available for Needlessly Prolonging Deposition Through Irrelevant Questions Even If Movant Did Not Move for A Protective Order under Rule 30 — No § 1927 Sanctions Imposable on Law Firms (Majority Rule – Circuit Split) — “Whether A Defendant Offers To Settle A Case Is Of Questionable Value In Determining Whether The Plaintiff’s Claims Are Frivolous” (Good Quote)

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence: Sixth Circuit Standards – Harsh Sanctions Typically Imposed Only for Culpability Greater Than Negligence – Sanction of Summary Judgment Properly Denied for Negligent Spoliation by Hospital’s Document Storage Company Years Before Plaintiff Ever Requested His Medical Records

Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunctions in District Court (5th Circuit Standards) — Vexatious Litigant Injunctions in Court of Appeals: Inherent Power and Statutory (All Writs Act) Authority — FRAP 38 Monetary Sanctions: Frivolousness Need Not Be Intentional, Can Be Inadvertent — RICO: Plaintiff Cannot Plead Actual Reliance on Assertion He Knew at The Time Was False; Actual Reliance Unjustifiable as A Matter of Law; Common-Law Fraud Not A Predicate Act

Supplemental vs. New Expert Report: If Report Asserts New Analysis Or Conclusions [Based on Information Available at Time of Original Report], It Is Not Supplemental within Rule 26(e)(2) — Rule 37(c)(1) and Rule 16(f) Exclusion: Four Factors (5th Circuit Test) — Sham Affidavit Doctrine Applies Only to Summary Judgment Affidavit That Contradicts Prior Deposition Testimony — Note: Court Fails to Address Rule 26(e)(1)(A) (Here, The New Opinion Was “Otherwise … Made Known to The Other Parties During The Discovery Process” Because It Was Inquired About At Deposition — See The Temptation to Depose Every Expert, 40 Litigation, No. 2 at 35 (Winter 2014)

Recklessness Sufficient for § 1927 Sanctions in 9th Circuit (Circuit Split) — Mere Delay of 19 Days in Producing Prior Settlement Agreement Among the Parties “Unreasonably Lengthened the Proceedings” — Sound Dissent

Archives