Arlington Industries v. Bridgeport Fittings

Filing 828

AMENDING ORDER re: 2/18/11 Order 826 - It is hereby ORDERED that the ct's order 826 dated 2/18/11 is ENDED as follows: 1. The portion of Order reading "upon the issuance of a mandate from the Fed Cir Ct of Appeals vacating jdgmt in Arli ngton v Bridgeport, Civ. A. No. 3:06-CV-1105(MDPA) Arlington shall notify the ct upon issuance of the mandate" is VACATED.; 2. The stay of permanent injunction in above-captioned case shall be IMMEDIATELY LIFTED only upon issuance of order by Fe d Cir denying Bridgeport's motion for stay of injunctions. See Arlington I Appeal, Doc. 25. Arlington shall notify the ct upon issuance of the Fed Cir's decision on Bridgeport's motion to stay. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 04/20/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.,

:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01-CV-0485
:
Plaintiff
:
(CONSOLIDATED)
:
v.
:
(Judge Conner)
:
BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC.,
:
:
Defendant
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC.,
Consolidated Plaintiff
v.
ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Consolidated Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

AMENDING ORDER
On February 18, 2011, this court issued a Memorandum and Order granting
the motion to lift stay (Doc. 808) filed by Arlington Industries, Inc. (“Arlington”) of
two permanent injunctions, (see Docs. 270, 776), issued in the above-captioned
matter. The court conditioned the lift of stay upon issuance of the mandate from
the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals vacating judgment in the parallel litigation of
Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., Civ. A. No. 3:06-CV-1105 (M.D.
Pa.) (Judge Caputo), appeal docketed, No. 2010-1025 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2009)
(“Arlington II”).

In opposing the motion to lift stay, Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (“Bridgeport”),
asserted that, until the mandate issued, the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Arlington
II, which reversed summary judgment in Bridgeport’s favor, was not a final
judgment. Bridgeport indicated that it intended to file a petition for rehearing and
asserted its belief that the chances of rehearing were good. This court, refusing to
engage in speculation or employ mathematical probabilities as to whether the
Federal Circuit would grant a petition for rehearing, declined to lift the stay until
the mandate issued. The court cited as the basis for its decision continuing angst
over the possibility of inconsistent judgments between Arlington II and the jury
verdict in the above-captioned matter (“Arlington I”).
Subsequent to the issuance of this court’s Memorandum and Order,
Bridgeport filed a petition for rehearing en banc in Arlington II. Meanwhile, the
appeal in the above-captioned matter, see Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport
Fittings, Inc., No. 2010-1377 (Fed. Cir.) (“Arlington I Appeal”), remains stayed, at
the parties’ request, pending resolution of the appeal in Arlington II. However, on
March 25, 2011, Bridgeport filed a motion with the Federal Circuit requesting a stay
of this court’s permanent injunctions for the duration of the Arlington I Appeal.
Arlington I Appeal, Doc. 25. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition by
the Federal Circuit.
On April 11, 2011, the Federal Circuit denied Bridgeport’s petition for
rehearing in Arlington II. See Arlington II, Doc. 63. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure and Federal Circuit Rule 41, the mandate issues seven (7) days

2

after the entry of an order denying a petition for rehearing. FED . R. APP . P. 41(b);
F.C.R. 41(b). On April 15, 2011, Bridgeport filed a motion to stay issuance of the
mandate. Arlington II, Doc. 64; see also FED . R. APP . P. 41(d); F.C.R. 41(d).
Bridgeport’s action prompted Arlington to submit correspondence to this court
requesting that the court amend its February 18, 2011 Order. Arlington asks this
court to delink the lift of stay of the permanent injunctions in the above-captioned
matter from issuance of the mandate in Arlington II. Bridgeport submitted a letter
response, and the court conducted a telephone conference on the matter on April
19, 2011.
At the time of this court’s February 18, 2011 Memorandum and Order, the
court did not foresee the current procedural posture of the Arlington II appeal.
Unaware that procedural mechanisms would be utilized to effectively stay issuance
of the mandate beyond the denial of panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, the court
linked the lift of the stay of its permanent injunctions to the issuance of the
mandate in Arlington II. However, the court’s clear purpose for the stay—namely,
avoiding inconsistent judgments—no longer applies in light of the Federal Circuit’s
denial of rehearing en banc in Arlington II.1
Further, the Federal Circuit now has before it Bridgeport’s motion to stay the
permanent injunctions pending the appeal in the above-captioned matter
(Arlington I Appeal). The Federal Circuit will therefore determine on the merits
1

The court obviously recognizes that Bridgeport may file a petition for writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. However, the likelihood of the
Supreme Court granting the petition and overturning the Federal Circuit’s opinion
in Arlington II, is extremely remote.
3

the precise issue which the parties have raised in this court. The matter of whether
to issue a stay of the permanent injunctions now rests with the Federal Circuit. In
accordance with the intent underpinning my February 18, 2011 Order, I conclude
that linkage of the permanent injunctions in the instant matter to the proceedings
in Arlington II is no longer appropriate.
To give proper effect to the intent of the Court’s February 18, 2011 Order, it is
hereby ORDERED that the court’s Order (Doc. 826) dated February 18, 2011 is
AMENDED as follows:
1.

The portion of the Order reading “upon the issuance of a mandate
from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals vacating judgment in
Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., Civ. A. No. 3:06CV-1105 (M.D. Pa.). Arlington shall notify the court upon issuance of
the mandate” is VACATED.

2.

The stay of the permanent injunctions in the above-captioned case
shall be IMMEDIATELY LIFTED only upon the issuance of an order
by the Federal Circuit denying Bridgeport’s motion for stay of
injunctions. See Arlington I Appeal, Doc. 25. Arlington shall notify the
court upon issuance of the Federal Circuit’s decision on Bridgeport’s
motion to stay.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge

Dated:

April 20, 2011