Filed: Jan. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Expedited Certification of Rulings for Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 144), filed December 31, 2014. On October 15, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from "using any of the Marks at issue [in this case] in a manner other than fair use." (Doc. 56.) On December 30, 2014, the Court clarified that the injunction has extraterritorial application. (
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Expedited Certification of Rulings for Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 144), filed December 31, 2014. On October 15, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from "using any of the Marks at issue [in this case] in a manner other than fair use." (Doc. 56.) On December 30, 2014, the Court clarified that the injunction has extraterritorial application. ( ..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Expedited Certification of Rulings for Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 144), filed December 31, 2014. On October 15, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants from "using any of the Marks at issue [in this case] in a manner other than fair use." (Doc. 56.) On December 30, 2014, the Court clarified that the injunction has extraterritorial application. (See Doc. 141.) Defendants seek interlocutory appeal of the injunction and the clarification order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). (See Doc. 146.)
The preliminary injunction is already on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (see Doc. 69); thus, it is not subject to § 1292(b), which is limited to orders "not otherwise appealable" under § 1292. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Further, the Court does not find that its clarification order (Doc. 141) is qualified for a § 1292(b) appeal. See McFarlin v. Conseco Servs., LLC, 381 F.3d 1251, 1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining appropriate situations for § 1292(b) appeals). Therefore, the appellate court will determine the scope and propriety of the appeal.
Accordingly, the Court thereby DENIES Defendant's Motion for Expedited Certification of Rulings for Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 144).
DONE AND ORDERED.
