VIZANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC et al v. WHITCHURCH et al
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 2/1/17. 2/1/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL, EMAILED.(rf, )
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VIZANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
JULIE P. WHITCHURCH, et al.
February 1, 2017
The court has scheduled for tomorrow, February 2,
2017, a hearing for defendant Julie Whitchurch to show cause why
she should not be held in contempt for violating this court’s
permanent injunction (Doc. # 214) entered on January 8, 2016.
Today, the day before the scheduled hearing, Whitchurch has
filed a motion “for relief.”
She urges the court to “withdraw,
reconsider, and/or stay the contempt proceedings[.]”
maintains that our Court of Appeals did not affirm the permanent
injunction and thus it does not have effect.
Whitchurch is wrong.
She appealed, among many other
orders, the permanent injunction entered on January 8, 2016.
Vizant Technologies, LLC v. Whitchurch, No. 15-431 (E.D. Pa.
2016), appeal docketed, No. 16-1178 (3d Cir. Jan. 29, 2016).
January 13, 2017, after extensive discussion in its Opinion, our
Court of Appeals affirmed the court’s permanent injunction and
entered judgment against Whitchurch.
Vizant Technologies, LLC
v. Whitchurch, No. 16-1178 (3d Cir. Jan. 13, 2017).
Specifically, the judgment stated:
This cause came to be considered on the record from
the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and was submitted pursuant to
Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on January 5, 2017. On
consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and
ADJUGED by this Court that the orders of the District
Court entered January 8, 2016, at ECF Nos. 213, 214,
and 215, be and the same are hereby affirmed, and that
this appeal is otherwise dismissed.
Id. (Emphasis added).
Our Court of Appeals clearly affirmed our
order “entered January 8, 2016, at ECF No. . . . 214.”
is the permanent injunction against Whitchurch which is the
subject of the hearing scheduled for tomorrow.
that there can be no contempt because there is no permanent
injunction is not only frivolous but disingenuous.
Even if the
Court of Appeals had not affirmed the permanent injunction, it
clearly did not overturn it.
Thus it remains in effect.
Accordingly, the motion of Whitchurch “for relief”
will be denied.
The hearing scheduled for tomorrow will
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?