202 F.3d 277 (9th Cir. 1999), 99-56199, Barber v. Artisan Entertainment, Inc.
|Citation:||202 F.3d 277|
|Party Name:||Sam BARBER, an individual; My Favorite Trading Company, Inc., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARTISAN ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a California corporation; Artisan Pictures, Inc., a California corporation; Daniel Myrick, an individual; Gregg Hale, an individual; Blair Witch Film Company, a Florida corporation; Blair Witch Film Partners,|
|Case Date:||November 19, 1999|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted November 15, 1999. 2
D.C. No. CV-99-6685-CBM
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding.
Before WALLACE, FARRIS and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Sam Barber and My Favorite Trading Company, Inc. (collectively ("Barber") appeal the district court's denial of Barber's motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and his motion to reconsider the denial in his action alleging violations of the Lanham Act and related state claims in connection with the release of the movie The Blair Witch Project. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Barber sought a TRO to enjoin Artisan Entertainment, Inc. and related parties from releasing the film without providing an "executive producer" credit for Barber. Although the film was released on July 13, 1999, and the videotape and DVD versions were released October 22, 1999, Barber still seeks injunctive relief in connection with the television and international releases of the film.
Ordinarily, an appeal does not lie from the denial of an application for a TRO, unless the circumstances render the denial "tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction." Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int'l Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Andrus, 625 F.2d 861, 862 (9th Cir.1980)).
Here, the denial of Barber's motions for a TRO and for reconsideration did not follow a full adversary hearing. Moreover, the district court's order does not...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP