Opinion
CASE NO: 8:10-cv-2539-T-23 AEP.
February 18, 2011
ORDER
The Secretary files (Doc. 5) a "proposed consent judgment". Although the paper includes the signature of each party, no party moves for entry of the "proposed consent judgment" or other relief. However, even if a party moves for approval (or the "proposed consent judgment" is construed as a motion), the "proposed consent judgment" merits rejection because the judgment contains in paragraph 7B an overly broad and permanent injunction against violating the whole of Title I of ERISA. Contrary to Rule 65(d), the prohibition in paragraph 7B fails to describe in reasonable detail the act or acts required or restrained (in fact, paragraph 7B appears superfluous next to the specific prohibitions in paragraphs 7C through 7G). The "proposed consent judgment" (Doc. 5) is construed as a motion and is DENIED for reasons more fully explained in S.E.C. v. Sky Way Global LLC, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2010).
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 18, 2011.