Opinion ID: 60490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: “We ordinarily review a district court’s decision to grant or deny an injunction for clear abuse of discretion. Underlying questions of law, however, are reviewed de novo.” Major League Baseball v. Crist, 331 F.3d 1177, 1183 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). MedQuest argues that de novo review also applies to questions of law underlying the scope of the injunction. This is incorrect; we review the scope of an injunction—a matter entirely within the realm of equity—only for an abuse of discretion. Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 404 F.3d 1297, 1308 (11th Cir. 2005); see also Harden v. Christina Sch. Dist., 924 A.2d 247, 269 (Del. Ch. 2007) (“Should more tailored relief be necessary, this court is empowered to fashion any remedy required by equity.”). “We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, taking as true the facts as they are alleged in the complaint.” Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Owens v. Samkle Auto. Inc., 425 F.3d 1318, 1320 (11th Cir.2005)). 5