applying Rule 65(d) to a permanent injunction
How later courts described this case
- applying Rule 65(d) to a permanent injunction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
TELETIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:25-cv-539-JSS-RMN
DEFENDANTS #1-18 AS
IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE “A,”
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff moves for entry of stipulated permanent injunctions that state: “Settled
Defendant[s], their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, subsidiaries, and
distributors, are permanently enjoined from making, using, selling, offering for sale,
and/or importing any product that infringes [Plaintiff’s] intellectual property rights
including, but in no way limited to, U.S. Design Patent No. D1,031,161.” (Dkts. 90,
90-1, 96, 96-1.) However, the motions—each a single sentence devoid of legal citation,
(see Dkts. 90, 96)—do not comply with Local Rule 3.01(a), which requires “a concise
statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and a
legal memorandum supporting the request,” M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(a). Further, the
proposed injunctions, (see Dkts. 90-1, 96-1), do not comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(d)(1), which requires “[e]very order granting an injunction” to “state the
reasons why it issued,” “state its terms specifically,” and “describe in reasonable
detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts
preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, Rule 65(d) applies to
permanent injunctions, as well. See Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523, 1531 (1th
Cir. 1996) (applying Rule 65(d) to a permanent injunction). The proposed injunctions
should set forth their terms “with specificity” and describe the acts restrained “in
sufficient detail to ‘apprise those within [their] scope of the conduct that is being
proscribed.’” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Rivers, 272 F.R.D. 607, 608 (M.D. Fla. 2011)
(quoting Brown v. Ala. Dep’t of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160, 1185 (11th Cir. 2010)).
Accordingly:
1. The motions (Dkts. 90, 96) are DENIED without prejudice.
2. The motion to strike one of the motions (Dkt. 92) is DENIED as moot.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 8, 2025.
Ae io
ye S. SNEED =
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties
_2-