Cable News Network, v. Video Monitoring Serv

Full title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. VIDEO MONITORING SERVICES…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Apr 6, 1992

959 F.2d 188 (11th Cir. 1992)

Opinion

No. 90-8798.

April 6, 1992.

Christopher P. Bussert, Jerre B. Swann, Kilpatrick Cody, Atlanta, Ga., Daniel J. Goldstein, Bruce P. Keller, Debevoise Plimpton, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

David Nimmer, Kenneth A. Liebman, Robert Aldisert, Irell Manella, Los Angeles, Cal., June Ann Sanders, William N. Withrow, Troutmen, Sanders, Lockerman Ashmore, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Francis D. Landrey, Charles S. Sims, Jon A. Baumgarten, Carole E. Handler, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz Mendelsohn, New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Cal., for amicus.

Peter C. Canfield, Dow, Lohnes Albertson, Atlanta, Ga., Sheila F. Anthony, Diane M. Morse, Arnold P. Lutzker, Dow, Lohnes Albertson, Washington, D.C., for amicus A.H. Belo Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; J. Owen Forrester, Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, ANDERSON, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.^_

_ Honorable Joseph W. Hatchett and Honorable J.L. Edmondson recused themselves and did not participate in this decision.

PER CURIAM:

Since the district court has entered a permanent injunction, and since the validity of that permanent injunction is not before us, it is not judicious for this court to grant the relief being sought on appeal. For that reason, the appeal is dismissed. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981). Any issues preserved by the injunction bond should be addressed in the first instance by the district court. Id. at 396, 101 S.Ct. at 1834.

IT IS SO ORDERED.