Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
9. Is the appellate court likely to have jurisdiction over the appeal?
The electronic company denied the allegations in the complaint. Sometime thereafter, the trademark owners moved for summary judgment requesting money damages and that a permanent injunction be imposed on the electronic company. The district court denied the trademark owners' motion. The trademark owners timely appealed, contending that the denial of summary judgment and refusal to grant a permanent injunction and damages constituted an appealable interlocutory order.
Owners of a trademark sued an electronic company in federal court, alleging that the electronic company was infringing its trademark and engaging in unfair competition. The owners sought a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction against the electronic company to preclude it from continuing to infringe the owners' trademark and sought money damages.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
1. the trial judge certifies that the interlocutory order involves a controlling question of law, as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation; AND
2. the court of appeals agrees to allow the appeal.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) allows for an immediate appeal of a federal district court order granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving injunctions, refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions. This provision makes it easy to take an interlocutory appeal from a decision granting or denying the injunction.
When a district court denies a motion for summary judgment and does not reach the merits of the claim, but simply moves the case to trial, it is not considered interlocutory under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See Switzerland Cheese Ass'n. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23 (1966) (holding that «the denial of a motion for a summary judgment because of unresolved issues of fact does not settle or even tentatively decide anything about the merits of the claim. It is strictly a pretrial order that decides only one thing — that the case should go to trial. Orders that in no way touch on the merits of the claim but only relate to pretrial procedures are not, in our view, 'interlocutory' within the meaning of § 1292(a)(1). We see no other way to protect the integrity of the congressional policy against piecemeal appeals»).
C is correct. The appellate court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court's denial of the motion for summary judgment was not based on the merits of the owners' request for an injunction. Under Switzerland Cheese, such a denial of a summary judgment motion is merely considered a pretrial order that does not constitute interlocutory within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
A is incorrect. The appellate court would not have jurisdiction because, even though the district court denied the motion for summary judgment, it did not reach the merits of whether the injunction should be issued. It merely served as a pretrial order that the case move towards trial and thus will not be considered interlocutory.
B is incorrect. The appeals court lacks jurisdiction because the denial of the motion for summary judgment did not reach the merits of the injunction request. Denying a motion for summary judgment is not a final adjudication on the merits.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with incorrect legal reasoning. The appellate court lacks jurisdiction, but not for this reason. There is no need for statutory authorization for interlocutory appeal of decisions that simultaneously deny both monetary and injunctive relief. The statute authorizes the interlocutory denial of an injunction and may be utilized as to the injunction denial even when an order also has the effect of temporarily denying monetary relief.