Campbell v. Feld Entertainment, Inc et al

Filing 344

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUESTED RULE 65 INSTRUCTION. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/17/2015. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

SHANNON CAMPBELL,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and
MICHAEL STUART,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

MARK ENNIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and
MICHAEL STUART,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK
13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUESTED RULE 65
INSTRUCTION

22
23

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case,

24

the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to instruct the jury pursuant to Rule 65(d)(2) of the

25

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has already rejected Plaintiffs’ Rule 65(d)(2)

26

argument on the record, see Trial Tr. 179:17-19, and Plaintiffs have not met their burden for

27

reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). To the extent Plaintiffs argue that Rule 51(d)(1) of

28

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the Court with an alternative basis for
1
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTED RULE 65 INSTRUCTION

1

reconsideration, Plaintiffs’ argument fails because the rule does not apply where, as here, “the

2

court rejected the request in a definitive ruling on the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1)(B).

3

Furthermore, as the Court indicated on the record, the limiting instruction the Court gave

4

regarding the Oakland federal court injunction is wholly consistent with U.S. District Judge

5

Edward Chen’s order of November 15, 2012, which detailed the terms of the federal injunction

6

operative at the time of the August 7, 2012 animal walk. Specifically, that order stated:

7
8
9

There is nothing to establish that the injunction agreed upon by Plaintiffs and
Defendants actually binds Feld (as opposed to the Coliseum Defendants) in any
particular way. The injunction simply specifies where Plaintiffs can have access
vis-a-vis the right of the Coliseum Defendants to exclude Plaintiffs from certain
areas of the complex. Feld is not legally “bound” by the injunction.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Cuviello v. City of Oakland, No. C-06-5517 EMC, 2012 WL 5628325, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15,

11

2012). The federal injunction operative at the time of the August 7, 2012 animal walk had been

12

initially issued by then U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen and adopted by U.S. District Judge

13

Marilyn Hall Patel. Id. at *1.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: February 17, 2015

_______________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTED RULE 65 INSTRUCTION