Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.
| Decision Date | 25 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-12200,01-12200 |
| Citation | 252 F.3d 1165 |
| Parties | (11th Cir. 2001) SUNTRUST BANK, as Trustee of the Stephens Mitchell trusts f.b.o. Eugene Muse Mitchell and Joseph Reynolds Mitchell, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D. C. Docket No. 01-00701-CV-CAP-1.
Before BIRCH, MARCUS and WOOD*, Circuit Judges.
It is manifest that the entry of a preliminary injunction in this copyright case was an abuse of discretion in that it represents an unlawful prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment.
While it falls within the district court's discretion to grant a preliminary injunction, see Mitek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng'g Co., Inc., 189 F.3d 840, 842 (11th Cir. 1999), "[t]he district court does not exercise unbridled discretion." Canal Authority of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974); Nnadi v. Richter, 976 F.2d 682, 690 (11th Cir. 1992). Plainly, it must exercise that discretion in light of what we have termed the "four prerequisites for the extraordinary relief of preliminary injunction." West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan, 689 F.2d 950, 956 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Canal Authority, 489 F.2d at 572.). The prerequisites are: (1) that there is a substantial likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the merits; (2) that there is a substantial threat plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may do to the defendant; and (4) that granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Warren Publ'g, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp., 115 F.3d 1509, 1516 (11th Cir. 1997). We add that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries its burden of persuasion on each of these prerequisites. Canal Authority, 489 F.2d at 573.
After thorough review of the entire record, we have concluded that Appellee Sun Trust has failed to make this critical showing, that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction, and that its ruling amounts to an unlawful prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. Accordingly, we VACATE forthwith the preliminary injunction of the district court. A comprehensive ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sierra Club v. Atlanta Regional Com'n
...the emergency motion for the stay. 8. As the Eleventh Circuit most recently reiterated in Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F.3d 1165, 2001 U.S.App. LEXIS 10802 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam): While it falls within the district court's discretion to grant a preliminary injunction, se......
-
Movimiento Democracia, Inc. v. Johnson
...GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs , 788 F.3d 1318, 1322 (11th Cir.2015) (quoting Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. , 252 F.3d 1165, 1166 (11th Cir.2001) (per curiam)).VII. ANALYSISThe Court shall address both the APA review of the Coast Guard's determination and the Pl......
-
Madera v. Detzner
...across the state.III Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction, "an extraordinary and drastic remedy." Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. , 252 F.3d 1165, 1166 (11th Cir. 2001). To succeed on a motion for preliminary injunction, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing they have a substantia......
-
Calvary Chapel Church v. Broward County, Fla.
...the injunction may do to Defendant; and (4) granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F.3d 1165, 1166 (11th Cir.2001). The Court further notes that, in the Eleventh Circuit, a preliminary injunction is considered an extraordina......
-
The Role of Parody in Copyright: is a New Wind Blowing?
...by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals provide substantial guidance with respect to these issues. See SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin, 252 F3d 1165, (11th Cir. 2001) (vacating an injunction barring publication of The Wind Done Gone as a prior restraint of speech in violation of the Firs......
-
Copyright and First Amendment Law After 'The Wind Done Gone'
...The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has now provided some guidance with respect to these issues. See SunTrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin, 252 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2001) (vacating an injunction barring publication of The Wind Done Gone as a prior restraint of speech in violation of the First......
-
Efficient Copyright Infringement
...an injunction issued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). For a conspicuous exception, see Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 252 F.3d 1165, 1166 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (invalidating, on a Speech Clause theory, an injunction against publication of a parody of Gone with th......
-
An empirical study of U.S. copyright fair use opinions, 1978-2005.
...and granting preliminary injunction where a parody's commerciality and other characteristics outweighed its transformativeness), vacated, 252 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) and 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001). The one unreversed outlier was Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publish......
-
WITHHOLDING INJUNCTIONS IN COPYRIGHT CASES: IMPACTS OF EBAY.
...interests in the first work outweighed public access to the second work. id. at 1385. (193.) Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.. 252 F.3d 1165, 1166 (11th Cir. 2001) (per (194.) Suntrust. 268 F.3d at 1276-77 (citing Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578 n.10). (195.) Id. at 1268-69. TWDG is a critic......
-
Why the U.k. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.s. Derivative Work Right
...230. See cases cited supra note 6. 231. See sources cited supra note 8. 232. See supra Part II.D. 233. See17 U.S.C. §107 (2006). 234. 252 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 235. See, e.g., Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity......