Opinion ID: 41378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion for Summary Disposition and Vacatur

Text: 18 The Ungars' Motion for Summary Disposition and Vacatur asserts that the restraining order has expired and is facially void under Rule 65 and that, therefore, summary disposition is appropriate. The Government opposes summary disposition and contends that this case is not appropriate for summary disposition. 19 Summary disposition is proper [in] those cases where time is truly of the essence, or where the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.1969). Summary disposition also may be appropriate in other situations, such as when the grounds for an order granting or dissolving an injunction no longer exist. See Aerojet-Gen. Corp. v. Askew, 476 F.2d 184, 186 (5th Cir.1973). 5 20 Despite the Ungars' assertion, the instant restraining order is not facially void. The order states that it shall remain in full force and effect until further order of this Court, and thus it has not expired on its face. Accordingly, we do not summarily vacate the injunction on that basis. 21 Relying on United States v. Thier, 801 F.2d 1463, 1468 (5th Cir.1986), the Ungars also argue that this 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)(A) restraining order should be summarily vacated because it is the equivalent of an ex parte temporary restraining order that was not issued in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. It is true that this restraining order was issued pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1)(A) in order to protect the Government's interest in assets alleged to be subject to criminal forfeiture. It is also true that, under Thier, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 notice and hearing requirements for ex parte orders apply to § 853(e)(1)(A) restraining orders. Yet, as discussed infra in Part III.F.2., Thier has been overruled, albeit on grounds other than its holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 governs § 853(e)(1)(A) restraining orders, and a panel of this court has questioned whether Rule 65 still governs § 853(e)(1)(A) restraining orders. Accordingly, we find that the merits of the opposing positions at bar are not so clear as to warrant summary disposition, and we deny the Ungars' request that we summarily dispose of this appeal without reaching its merits. 22