FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
v.
SPM THERMO-SHIELD, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court will fashion a permanent injunction itself after the parties failed to agree on its terms.
Following a grant of summary judgment for the FTC, the parties were directed to agree on a permanent injunction. They could not reach an agreement and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Permanent Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants. /
ORDER1
After granting summary judgment in favor of the Federal Trade Commission, the Court directed the parties to work together to stipulate to the form of a permanent injunction. (Doc. 69). Unable to reach an agreement, the parties separately provided their input on proposed language for a permanent injunction and objections to their opponent’s proposal. (Docs. 70, 74, 77). The parties are far apart on what they would agree to be an appropriate permanent injunction. (Compare Doc. 70-1 with Doc. 74-1). Thus, the Court is left to fashion one on its own.
1317 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing LaMarca v. Turner, 995 F. 2d 1526, 1543 (11th Cir. 1993) (“While district courts have broad discretion to fashion equitable relief, such relief must target the existing wrong.”)). Here, the FTC filed a lawsuit requesting the Court enter a permanent injunction to prevent future
violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act by Defendants. (Doc. 38 at 15). Defendants requested an evidentiary hearing, which the Court took under advisement pending review of the submissions. (Docs. 71, 72). The
Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary and will fashion equitable relief from the parties’ papers alone. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. Defendants’ request for oral argument (Doc. 71) is DENIED.
2. The Court will enter the permanent injunction separately from this Order. 3. After entering the permanent injunction, the Clerk is DIRECTED to
enter judgment as stated in the Opinion and Order (Doc. 69) in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, terminate any deadlines, and CLOSE the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on May 31, 2022.
tite POLSTER otal
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LaMARCA v. R.V. Turner, 995 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2010)