Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Company , 252 F.3d 1165 ( 2001 )

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_______________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-12200 MAY 25, 2001
THOMAS K. KAHN
_______________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 01-00701-CV-CAP-1
SUNTRUST BANK, as Trustee of the
Stephens Mitchell trusts f.b.o. Eugene
Muse Mitchell and Joseph Reynolds Mitchell,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
______________________________
(May 25, 2001)
Before BIRCH, MARCUS and WOOD*, Circuit Judges.
*
Honorable Harlington Wood, Jr., U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by
designation.
PER CURIAM:
It is manifest that the entry of a preliminary injunction in this copyright case
was an abuse of discretion in that it represents an unlawful prior restraint in violation
of the First Amendment.
While it falls within the district court’s discretion to grant a preliminary
injunction, see Mitek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., Inc., 189 F.3d 840, 842 (11th
Cir. 1999), “[t]he district court does not exercise unbridled discretion.” Canal
Authority of State of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974); Nnadi v.
Richter, 976 F.2d 682, 690 (11th Cir. 1992). Plainly, it must exercise that discretion
in light of what we have termed the “four prerequisites for the extraordinary relief of
preliminary injunction.” West Point-Pepperell, Inc. v. Donovan, 689 F.2d 950, 956
(11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Canal Authority, 489 F.2d at 572.). The prerequisites are:
(1) that there is a substantial likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the merits; (2) that
there is a substantial threat plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is
not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened
harm the injunction may do to the defendant; and (4) that granting the preliminary
injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Warren Publ’g, Inc. v. Microdos
Data Corp., 115 F.3d 1509, 1516 (11th Cir. 1997). We add that a preliminary
injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy that should not be granted unless the
2
movant clearly carries its burden of persuasion on each of these prerequisites. Canal
Authority, 489 F.2d at 573.
After thorough review of the entire record, we have concluded that Appellee
Sun Trust has failed to make this critical showing, that the district court abused its
discretion by granting a preliminary injunction, and that its ruling amounts to an
unlawful prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment. Accordingly, we
VACATE forthwith the preliminary injunction of the district court. A comprehensive
opinion of the court will follow.
It is so ORDERED this 25th day of May, 2001.
3