Acme Barricades, L.C. v. Acme Barricades, LLC

Filing 67

ORDERED: 66 Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Proposed Consent Judgment, construed as a Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment, is DENIED without prejudice to filing a renewed motion with a revised proposed consent judgment that complies with this Order. Renewed motion due August 30, 2022. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 8/2/2022. (MHM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
ACME BARRICADES, L.C.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:20-cv-255-MMH-PDB

ACME BARRICADES, LLC,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Proposed
Consent Judgment, filed on June 15, 2022, which the Court construes as a
Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment (Doc. 66; Motion).

In the Motion,

Plaintiff seeks the entry of the Proposed Consent Judgment (Doc. 66-1) and
represents that the “parties have reviewed and agree on the form of the
Proposed Consent Judgment.”

See Motion at 1, Ex. A.

Significantly, the

Proposed Consent Judgment invokes Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (Rule(s)) and enjoins Defendant from engaging in certain conduct.
However, upon review, the Court is unable to approve and enter the Proposed
Consent Judgment in its current form as it fails to comply with the
requirements of Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)). As

such, the Court will deny the Motion without prejudice to the filing of a renewed
motion that incorporates the following revisions.
In the Proposed Consent Judgment, the parties identify the persons
bound by the order as follows: “Defendant, Acme Barricades, LLC; its officers,
agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and all other persons who are in
active concert or participation with anyone described in this paragraph . . . .”
See Proposed Consent Judgment ¶¶ 1-3. Although this language is consistent
with subparagraphs (A)–(C) of Rule 65(d)(2), it fails to include the limiting
language at the outset of Rule 65(d)(2) that an injunction binds only those
persons “who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise.” See
Rule 65(d)(2). To ensure that any injunction entered by the Court accurately
reflects those persons who are bound by its directives, the parties must insert
language in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 limiting the reach of the injunction to only
those persons who receive actual notice.
In addition, paragraph 3 of the Proposed Consent Judgment prohibits
Defendant and related persons from “using the photograph identified in the
Complaint . . . .”

See Proposed Consent Judgment ¶ 3 (emphasis added).

However, Rule 65(d)(1) directs that every order granting an injunction must
“describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other
document—the act or acts restrained or required.”

See Rule 65(d)(1)(C)

(emphasis added). As such, to comply with Rule 65(d)(1)(C), the parties must

-2-

modify the Proposed Consent Judgment to describe in reasonable detail the acts
restrained without referring to the complaint or other document.
Last, the Court observes that the Proposed Consent Judgment does not
specify or otherwise limit its duration. The Court is not inclined to enforce the
Proposed Consent Judgment into perpetuity. Any revised Proposed Consent
Judgment must contain a provision limiting the duration of the injunctive relief
to a reasonable timeframe as appropriate under the facts of this case.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing Proposed Consent Judgment (Doc. 66),
construed as a Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment, is DENIED
without prejudice to filing a renewed motion with a revised
Proposed Consent Judgment that complies with the requirements of
this Order.
2. The parties shall have up to and including August 30, 2022, to file the
renewed motion.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 2nd day of August,
2022.

-3-

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-4-