Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Intern., Inc.

Decision Date27 August 1982
Docket Number81-5847,Nos. 81-5647,s. 81-5647
Citation686 F.2d 750
Parties1982-2 Trade Cases 64,917 SPORTS FORM, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Mark R. Denton, Denton & Denton, Ltd., Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellant.

Diane P. Zielinski, Cleveland, Ohio, argued, for defendant-appellee; Edward S. Coleman, Las Vegas, Nev., Baker & Hostetler, Cleveland, Ohio, on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before CHAMBERS, WALLACE and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

WALLACE, Circuit Judge:

Sports Form, Inc. (Sports Form) appeals from a district court order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction. We affirm.

I

Sports Form disseminates horse racing information to bookmakers in Nevada. It purchases its information from United Press International (UPI) under a contract which requires that UPI furnish and Sports Form purchase three news wires-the Unirace Wire and the Supplemental Wire, which supply horse racing information, and the Sports Wire, which supplies general sports information.

Sports Form alleges that it contracted for all three wire services only because UPI refused to sell it the Unirace Wire separately and argues that UPI's insistence on selling the three wire services as a package constitutes an illegal tying arrangement. Sports Form's complaint sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring UPI to continue to provide Sports Form the Unirace Wire. It also sought a declaration that it was not required to pay for the Supplemental and Sports Wires and was relieved of liability for services provided before the action was initiated.

UPI alleges that Sports Form requested UPI provide it with the same wire services which it provided to Sports Form's principal competitor, Swanson News (Swanson), and that the contract for the three wire services was prepared upon that representation. Swanson receives all three wire services. UPI counterclaimed for amounts due on services provided prior to initiation of the action and for the per diem charges for services rendered after that date.

Based upon the record before him, the district judge found that at all times prior to the execution of the contract, Sports Form represented to UPI its desire to purchase the same services which UPI provided to Swanson. The district court therefore concluded that Sports Form was estopped from claiming that the contract was one of adhesion or that UPI had conditioned its sale of the Unirace Wire service on Sports Form's purchase of Supplemental and Sports Wires. The district court held that Sports Form had failed to demonstrate any chance that it would prevail on the merits and denied its motion for a preliminary injunction.

II

The grant or denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the district court. Its order granting or denying the injunction will be reversed only if the district court relied on an erroneous legal premise or abused its discretion. Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981); Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980) (L. A. Coliseum). A district court's order is reversible for legal error if the court does not employ the appropriate legal standards which govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction, id.; see Benda v. Grand Lodge of International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 584 F.2d 308, 314-15 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. dismissed, 441 U.S. 937, 99 S.Ct. 2065, 60 L.Ed.2d 667 (1979) (Benda); Aguirre v. Chula Vista Sanitary Service & Sani-Tainer, Inc., 542 F.2d 779, 781 (9th Cir. 1976), or if, in applying the appropriate standards, the court misapprehends the law with respect to the underlying issues in litigation. Wright v. Rushen, supra, 642 F.2d at 1132; L. A. Coliseum, supra, 634 F.2d at 1200; Kennecott Copper Corp., etc. v. Costle, 572 F.2d 1349, 1357 n.3 (9th Cir. 1978).

However, unless the district court's decision relies on erroneous legal premises, it will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would have arrived at a different result if it had applied the law to the facts of the case. Rather, the appellate court will reverse only if the district court abused its discretion. Miss Universe, Inc. v. Flesher, 605 F.2d 1130, 1133 & n.8 (9th Cir. 1979). To determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the reviewing court "must consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.... The (reviewing) court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the (district court)." Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (citations omitted). Review of an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is therefore much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction where all conclusions of law are freely reviewable.

Abuse of discretion may also occur when the district court rests its conclusions on clearly erroneous findings of fact. See Buchanan v. United States Postal Service, 508 F.2d 259, 267 n.24 (5th Cir. 1975); Unicon Management Corp. v. Koppers Co., 366 F.2d 199, 203 (2d Cir. 1966). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when "the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948); Edinburgh Assurance Co. v. R. L. Burns Corp., 669 F.2d 1259, 1261 (9th Cir. 1982). Our review of the district court's findings, pursuant to its action on a motion for preliminary judgment is, of course, restricted to the limited record available to the district court when it granted or denied the motion. The district court's findings supporting its order granting or denying a permanent injunction may differ after presentation of all the evidence and so may our determination as to whether its subsequent findings are clearly erroneous.

We emphasize the ways in which review of an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction differs from review of an order involving a permanent injunction because we are persuaded that in some cases, parties appeal orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions in order to ascertain the views of the appellate court on the merits of the litigation. Because of the limited scope of our review of the law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
302 cases
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Cnty. of San Diego
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 29 Marzo 2021
    ...... Company ; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; American Snuff Company, LLC; and Modoral Brands ...Case No.: 20-CV-1290 JLS (WVG) United States District Court, S.D. California. Signed ... See, e.g. , Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc. , 686 ......
  • Neighborhood Mkt. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 29 Marzo 2021
    ......Case No.: 20-CV-1124 JLS (WVG) United States District Court, S.D. California. Signed ... See, e.g. , Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc. , 686 ......
  • GEO Grp., Inc. v. Newsom
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 8 Octubre 2020
    ...... Cases Case No.: 19-CV-2491 JLS (WVG) United States District Court, S.D. California. Signed ...Press (Oct. 11, 2019), ... happens to have presented its claims in one form over another does not confer standing (or ... See, e.g. , Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc. , 686 ......
  • Conservation Cong. v. United States Forest Serv., NO. CIV. S-11-2605 LKK/EFB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 19 Junio 2012
    ......Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 ... See Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc. , 686 F.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • An Empirical Look at Preliminary Injunctions in Challenges Under Environmental Protection Laws
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 47-5, May 2017
    • 1 Mayo 2017
    ...v. City of Minneapolis, 940 F.2d 367, 370 (8th Cir. 1991) (using “balance of equities”); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982) (using “balance of hardships”). he Supreme Court uses “balance of equities.” Winter , 555 U.S. at 20. 12. See Amoco Prod.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT