Bruce Kirby, Inc. et al v. LaserPerformance (Europe) Limited et al

Filing 533

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER. In accordance with the attached opinion, the Court DENIES the motion for entry of order (Doc. # 505 ) without prejudice to its renewal at the close of trial and with respect to the Court's entry of final judgment. The motion to strike (Doc. # 511 ) is DENIED as moot. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/17/2020. (Al-Jarani, Y.)

Case 3:13-cv-00297-JAM Document 533 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

BRUCE KIRBY, INC. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 3:13-cv-00297 (JAM)
No. 3:17-cv-01158 (JAM) (consol.)

v.
LASERPERFORMANCE (EUROPE)
LIMITED et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER
Plaintiff Global Sailing Ltd. (“GSL”) has filed a motion for entry of order (Doc. #505)
following this Court’s partial grant of summary judgment on certain liability issues in GSL’s
favor (Doc. #494) against LaserPerformance (Europe) Ltd. (“LPE”) and Quarter Moon, Inc.
(“QMI”). See Bruce Kirby, Inc. v. LaserPerformance (Europe) Ltd., 2019 WL 3767510 (D.
Conn. 2019). GSL proposes that the Court enter the following grants of injunctive relief that it
believes are justified in light of the Court’s resolution of the underlying liability issues on
summary judgment: (1) that LPE shall offer to sell to GSL, or a licensee of GSL, all plugs,
moulds and tooling (the “Materials”) owned or controlled by LPE relating to the manufacture of
Kirby Sailboats; (2) that LPE and QMI shall discontinue manufacturing, selling, or using these
Materials to build or sell Kirby Sailboats; and (3) that, if LPE and/or QMI are not in possession
of such Materials, they shall instruct any subcontractors with such possession to return the
Materials and cease and desist from using them. Doc. #505-1 at 3-4 (¶¶ 6-8).
I will deny GSL’s motion on the ground that GSL has not shown that it is entitled to an
immediate grant of partial remedial injunctive relief. Absent a proper application for a
preliminary injunction (with a showing of irreparable harm), a court does not ordinarily enter
interim grants of partial injunctive relief while the remainder of an action remains pending for

1

Case 3:13-cv-00297-JAM Document 533 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 3

adjudication at trial. The fact that a court may grant a motion for partial summary judgment on
certain issues of liability does not mean that the prevailing party is thereby necessarily entitled to
an immediate grant of a corresponding remedy as if a final appealable judgment had entered on
the party’s behalf.
To the contrary, if a party believes that an order is warranted for entry of partial judgment
with an order of permanent remedial injunctive relief, a party may file a motion for partial
judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For cases involving
multiple claims and parties, that rule allows for a court to enter a final partial judgment “only if
the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
“Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of
the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating
all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.” Ibid.
Although GSL’s briefing does not cite or acknowledge Rule 54, that rule appears to be
applicable to the type of relief that GSL seeks here. 1 Rule 54 requires me to find there is no just
reason to delay entry of partial final judgment in the form requested by GSL. But it appears that
there is a just reason for delay in light of the many objections raised by LPE and QMI to the
wording and scope of the proposed order. Especially in light of the fact that trial of all the
remaining issues is less than a month away, the equities warrant waiting until there is a

1
A substantial question may exist whether Rule 54(b) is applicable to the extent that the Court’s grant of partial
summary judgment resolved an entire claim as distinct from certain aspects of a claim. See Acumen Re Mgmt. Corp.
v. Gen. Sec. Nat. Ins. Co., 769 F.3d 135, 141 (2d Cir. 2014) (discussing meaning of a cognizable “claim” for
purposes of Rule 54(b)). Even if so, the same equitable concerns that I describe above would weigh against my
granting of GSL’s proposed interim remedial order pending the imminent trial of this matter.

2

Case 3:13-cv-00297-JAM Document 533 Filed 01/17/20 Page 3 of 3

determination of the remaining liability issues and then, if applicable, for the entry of a single
final judgment with a specification of all forms of relief to which GSL may be entitled.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for entry of order (Doc. #505) without
prejudice to its renewal at the close of trial and with respect to the Court’s entry of final
judgment. GSL’s motion to strike (Doc. #511) is DENIED as moot.
Dated at New Haven this 17th day of January 2020.
/s/Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

3