Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02555/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02555-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MDY Industries, LLC, 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs.

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; and

Vivendi Games, Inc., 

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

 __________________________________

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; and

Vivendi Games, Inc.,

 Third-Party Plaintiffs,

vs.

Michael Donnelly,

Third-Party Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2555-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On July 14, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the

parties’ motions for summary judgment. Dkt. #82. The Court granted summary judgment

in favor of Blizzard Entertainment and Vivendi Games (collectively, “Blizzard”) with respect

to liability on Blizzard’s claims for copyright infringement and tortious interference with

contract. Id. at 26, ¶ 1. Blizzard has filed a motion for a permanent injunction and an

alternative motion to amend judgment. Dkt. #84. Blizzard essentially seeks summary

Case 2:06-cv-02555-DGC Document 91 Filed 09/18/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

judgment on its prayer for permanent injunctive relief. See Dkt. #10 at 20. Blizzard makes

legal arguments with respect to the four-part injunctive relief test (Dkt. #84 at 3-7), requests

a broad but specific form of injunction (id. at 7-11), and presents affidavits and other

evidence in support of its arguments and injunction request (Dkt. ##84-2, 84-3, 84-5, 84-6).

MDY Industries and Michael Donnelly oppose Blizzard’s request, arguing that Blizzard has

not, as a matter of law, satisfied the test for injunctive relief. Dkt. #85.

The deadline for filing dispositive motions was March 21, 2008. Dkt. #33. Blizzard’s

motion for a permanent injunction was filed on July 28, 2008, more than four months late.

Moreover, Blizzard was limited, absent leave of Court, to one motion for summary judgment.

Dkt. #20 at 4, ¶ 7(b). Blizzard does not contend that it was somehow precluded from

requesting the permanent injunction it now seeks in its initial summary judgment motion.

Blizzard itself acknowledges that “‘there is nothing novel about a permanent injunction

issued on summary judgment[.]’” Dkt. #86 at 2 (quoting Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Intra

Brokers, Inc., 24 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 1994)) (alteration omitted).

Because Blizzard’s motion for a permanent injunction was not timely filed, the Court

will deny the motion without prejudice. Blizzard may, of course, seek a permanent

injunction at trial.

IT IS ORDERED that Blizzard Entertainment’s and Vivendi Games’ motion for a

permanent injunction and alternative motion to amend judgment (Dkt. #84) is denied without

prejudice.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02555-DGC Document 91 Filed 09/18/08 Page 2 of 2