From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Kurnizki

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jan 24, 2007
2:06-cv-2702-GEB-KJM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2007)

Opinion

2:06-cv-2702-GEB-KJM.

January 24, 2007


ORDER


On January 22, 2007, the parties filed a "[Proposed] Judgment and Permanent Injunction Based on Stipulation" ("Stipulation"). The Stipulation reveals the parties have settled this action. The Stipulation does not indicate that Defendant will not abide by the parties' agreed upon settlement, such that a permanent injunction and retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement is required.

"[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court should [grant a permanent injunction and] exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding upon the court." Arata v. Nu Skin Int'l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). "According to well established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy [the injunctive relief] test before a court may grant such relief." Ebay v. Mercexchange, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 2006 WL 1310670, at *2 (May 15, 2006). The injunctive relief test includes an inquiry into "whether future violations are sufficiently likely to warrant an injunction." U.S. v. Laerdal Mfg. Corp., 73 F.3d 852, 856 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the parties have not shown the need for a permanent injunction. Therefore, the Court will not enter the permanent injunction the parties proposed. Further, the proposed injunction provision that prohibits Defendant from making "any public statements that are inconsistent with any term of the Stipulation to Judgment and Permanent Injunction" lacks the required specificity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 because the word "public" is unclear.

Since the Stipulation reveals the parties' intent to have judgment entered, notwithstanding the decision against issuance of permanent injunction, the Clerk of the Court will be instructed to enter judgment. See Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194 (5th Cir. 1980) (indicating an order could issue even where the parties fail to formally request it).

Judgment is to be entered in favor of Plaintiffs, as follows: Defendant shall pay to Plaintiffs in settlement of this action the total sum of $4080.00, and shall pay Plaintiffs' costs of suit (complaint filing fee and service of process fee) in the amount of $420.00. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Kurnizki

United States District Court, E.D. California
Jan 24, 2007
2:06-cv-2702-GEB-KJM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2007)
Case details for

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Kurnizki

Case Details

Full title:CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 24, 2007

Citations

2:06-cv-2702-GEB-KJM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2007)

Citing Cases

Rubie's Costume Co. v. Vandue Corp.

With the foregoing in mind, the Court is not prepared to enter a permanent injunction pursuant to the Joint…

Child Evangelism Fellowship of Minn. v. Minneapolis Special Sch. Dist. No. 1

Instead, the Stipulation reveals the parties' agreement to settle the action. See Capitol Records, Inc. v.…