Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04233-36/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTED RULE 65 INSTRUCTION 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SHANNON CAMPBELL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK

13-CV-00233-LHK 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

REQUESTED RULE 65 

INSTRUCTION 

MARK ENNIS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and 

MICHAEL STUART, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, 

the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to instruct the jury pursuant to Rule 65(d)(2) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has already rejected Plaintiffs’ Rule 65(d)(2) 

argument on the record, see Trial Tr. 179:17-19, and Plaintiffs have not met their burden for 

reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). To the extent Plaintiffs argue that Rule 51(d)(1) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the Court with an alternative basis for 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 344 Filed 02/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTED RULE 65 INSTRUCTION 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

reconsideration, Plaintiffs’ argument fails because the rule does not apply where, as here, “the 

court rejected the request in a definitive ruling on the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(1)(B). 

Furthermore, as the Court indicated on the record, the limiting instruction the Court gave 

regarding the Oakland federal court injunction is wholly consistent with U.S. District Judge 

Edward Chen’s order of November 15, 2012, which detailed the terms of the federal injunction 

operative at the time of the August 7, 2012 animal walk. Specifically, that order stated: 

There is nothing to establish that the injunction agreed upon by Plaintiffs and 

Defendants actually binds Feld (as opposed to the Coliseum Defendants) in any 

particular way. The injunction simply specifies where Plaintiffs can have access 

vis-a-vis the right of the Coliseum Defendants to exclude Plaintiffs from certain 

areas of the complex. Feld is not legally “bound” by the injunction. 

Cuviello v. City of Oakland, No. C-06-5517 EMC, 2012 WL 5628325, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 

2012). The federal injunction operative at the time of the August 7, 2012 animal walk had been 

initially issued by then U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen and adopted by U.S. District Judge 

Marilyn Hall Patel. Id. at *1. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 17, 2015 _______________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:12-cv-04233-LHK Document 344 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 2