Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03605/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03605-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Abbott Spine, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Gannon Rice Medical, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3605-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Gannon Rice Medical, Inc., Justin Gannon, and Clair Rice's

(collectively "GRM defendants") motion to dismiss (doc. 61), plaintiff's response (doc. 64),

and GRM defendants' reply (doc. 66).

In its first amended complaint (doc. 23), plaintiff asserted claims for breach of

contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with

business relationships, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair competition. Rather than file an

answer to the amended complaint, the GRM defendants now move to dismiss all claims "with

the exception of the claim for injunctive relief." Motion to Dismiss at 1. Plaintiff responds

that the motion should be denied because injunctive relief is the only relief sought against

the GRM defendants. The GRM defendants now concede that this eliminates the basis for

their motion to dismiss, Reply at 3, and accordingly the motion is denied as moot (doc. 61).

Case 2:05-cv-03605-FJM Document 68 Filed 07/24/06 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 -

Nevertheless, the GRM defendants also move to stay this proceeding pending their

appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the order granting plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction

(doc. 43). The GRM defendants make the untenable argument that "there are no claims for

relief other than the injunctive relief which is on appeal [and] [t]here is nothing to be done

in furtherance of any other claims." Reply at 2. They further contend that having obtained

the necessary discovery to secure injunctive relief, there is no basis for plaintiff to require the

GRM defendants to incur the additional expense of answering the amended complaint or

engaging in further discovery. Id. 

The GRM defendants fail to recognize the material distinction between a preliminary

and permanent injunction and the concomitant purposes and burdens of proof associated with

each. Interlocutory appeals from preliminary injunctive orders do not divest district courts

of jurisdiction to address the merits of the action, see Thomas v. Bd. of Educ., 607 F.2d 1043,

1047 n.7 (2d Cir. 1979) (citing 9 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 203.11

(2d ed. 1975)), even when the only relief sought is permanent injunctive relief. The outcome

of the appeal will not affect the processing of the underlying merits of the claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING GRM defendants' motion to dismiss

(doc. 61). The GRM defendants' shall have 15 days from the date of this order to answer the

amended complaint. 

DATED this 21st day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-03605-FJM Document 68 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 2