JL Powell Clothing LLC v. Powell, 102414 FED1, 14-1242

Docket Nº:14-1242
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:JL POWELL CLOTHING LLC; JL POWELL LLC, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. JOSHUA L. POWELL, individually, d/b/a The Field, d/b/a The Field Outfitting, d/b/a The Field Outfitting Company, Defendant, Appellee, BROWNELLS, INC., d/b/a The Field Outfitting Company, Defendant.
Attorney:Joseph Collins, with whom DLA Piper LLP (US), Roy T. Pierce, and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP were on brief, for appellant. Thomas C. Newman, with whom Richard L. O'Meara, Stacey D. Neumann, and Murray Plumb & Murray were on brief, for appellees.
Judge Panel:Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Selya and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 24, 2014
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

JL POWELL CLOTHING LLC; JL POWELL LLC, Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.

JOSHUA L. POWELL, individually, d/b/a The Field, d/b/a The Field Outfitting, d/b/a The Field Outfitting Company, Defendant, Appellee,

BROWNELLS, INC., d/b/a The Field Outfitting Company, Defendant.

No. 14-1242

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

October 24, 2014

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Nancy Torresen, U.S. District Judge]

Joseph Collins, with whom DLA Piper LLP (US), Roy T. Pierce, and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP were on brief, for appellant.

Thomas C. Newman, with whom Richard L. O'Meara, Stacey D. Neumann, and Murray Plumb & Murray were on brief, for appellees.

Before Lynch, Chief Judge, Selya and Barron, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

This "moving target of a case" comes before us on interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction entered against Joshua L. Powell ("Joshua"), in litigation resulting from several contracts, including an agreement between the company he founded, JLP Retail Holding, Inc. ("Retail Holding"), 1 and a new joint venture, JL Powell LLC, formed with non-party Blue Highways III LLC.

A detailed recitation of the facts is not needed. The only issue before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction. See TEC Eng'g Corp. v. Budget Molders Supply, Inc., 82 F.3d 542, 544-45 (1st Cir. 1996). Although we are permitted to resolve Joshua's motion to dismiss when entertaining an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction, such jurisdiction is discretionary and we decline Joshua's invitation to exercise it. See First Med. Health Plan, Inc. v. Vega-Ramos, 479 F.3d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 2007) (holding that appellate review of a motion to dismiss is "permissible where the underlying facts are undisputed, the parties have had a fair opportunity to brief the legal issues, and the court of appeals can resolve the case as a matter of law" (emphasis added)); see also 16 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3921.1 (3d ed.) ("The court of appeals is not required to go beyond the issues that must be resolved to conclude review of the injunction determination."). Joshua's claims involve difficult questions of state law, and the record before us is insufficiently developed to make such review appropriate at this juncture. Cf. First Med., 479 F.3d at 50.

To issue a preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the district court must find that the moving party has established (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent interim relief, (3) that the balance of equities is in his favor, and (4) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. See Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). "Though the district court enjoys considerable discretion in applying this test...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP