Harris Research, Inc. v. Perrine et al
Filing
393
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER-See order for details. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 10/7/11. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION
HARRIS RESEARCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAY PERRINE, JEFF LYDON, LISA
SMITH, and JOHN DOES I-X,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Defendants.
Case No. 1:05CV136 CW
JEFF LYDON and LISA SMITH,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
HARRIS RESEARCH, INC.,
Counterclaim Defendant.
Now before the court is the Request of Michael Weber that the court reconsider the
court’s Order [Dkt No. 385] dated September 13, 2011, denying Mr. Weber’s motion to dissolve
Mr. Weber as a party to the Permanent Injunction [Dkt No. 56] entered in this case. Mr. Weber
argues that the court based the ruling on his failure to articulate which rules had been violated by
the court’s order. The abbreviated nature of the order does merit further consideration by the
court. Upon reconsideration, however, the court affirms its prior order.
In support of his motion to dissolve Mr. Weber as a party to the Permanent Injunction,
Mr. Weber argues that the court erred because it did not preserve his right to a jury trial, which
he argues is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2). Mr. Weber fails to recognize
that under Rule 19 a person may be joined after final judgment when the person has acquired an
interest in the subject matter of the injunction. Crude Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 189 F.R.D. 1,
2 (D.D.C. 1999). In that case, the court stated:
In certain limited circumstances non-parties may be joined to an action after judgment has
been entered. Rules 19(a) and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate
post-judgment joinder so long as certain threshold requirements are met. These
requirements are that joinder will not unduly prejudice the opposing party, and that the
court's jurisdiction will not be adversely affected. In assessing any undue prejudice, courts
focus on whether the moving party delayed unduly in seeking the joinder of an additional
party or parties.
189 F.R.D. at 2. (citations omitted). This authority was cited in the Report and Recommendation
[Dkt No. 258] recommending that the court add Mr. Weber as a party to the Permanent
Injunction. In the Recommendation, which the court adopted, the Magistrate Judge found that all
of the requirements were met to add Mr. Weber as a party. In particular, the Magistrate Judge
found that Mr. Weber “acquired his proprietary interest after the judgment was entered, from an
existing defendant and knew or should have known of the injunction.” Mr. Weber does not
challenge this finding.
Moreover, an injunction is not the form of relief which entitles a party to a jury trial. By
their nature, injunctions are a form of equitable relief for which a jury trial is not available. As a
result, Mr. Weber’s claim that he was denied a jury trial is without merit.
Mr. Weber further argues that the order adding him as a party to the Permanent Injunction
failed to comply with Local Rule DUCivR 3-5. The rule deals with the content of the complaint.
It does not have any application to Mr. Weber’s joinder. Mr. Weber further argues that the court
2
lacks personal jurisdiction over him, apparently because no complaint was filed against him. Mr.
Weber fails to recognize, however, that he was joined as an additional party to the Permanent
Injunction because he acted to acquire an interest in the property that is the subject matter of the
injunction. His joinder is to provide him clear notice that he may not engage in conduct
prohibited by the Permanent Injunction and make him subject to the Permanent Injunction should
he act contrary to its prohibitions. Mr. Weber does not dispute that he has acquired such an
interest. Because of these fact, Mr. Weber’s argument that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of
the court is without merit.
Finally, Mr. Weber argues that his joinder to the Permanent Injunction is in error because
the court did not keep the docket as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(1). Mr.
Weber argues that certain docket numbers are used for the court only and that the use of such
entries precludes him from determining if he was “prejudiced, surprised, or hampered in his
defense.” Mr. Weber, however, fails to cite to any supposed “hidden” docket entries that he
claims has prejudiced him or any ex parte proceedings involving him or actions taken against
him. Nevertheless, the court has reviewed each docket entry from the Motion to Add Mr. Weber
as a Party [Dkt. No. 227] to the present date. The entries Mr. Weber is apparently questioning
involve notes of actions taken by the court staff. None have any bearing on Mr. Weber’s being
joined as a party. Should Mr. Weber wish to confirm the court’s conclusion, he may review the
complete docket at the court house, excepting only those entries that have been sealed because of
confidential information that has no connection to Mr. Weber.
For the reasons stated, the court has reconsidered the denial of Mr. Weber’s motion to
3
dissolve him as a party to the Permanent Injunction, but reaffirms its prior order [Dkt No. 385]
denying the motion to dissolve.
DATED this 7th day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Judge
4
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?