Opinion ID: 198547
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legal Identification

Text: 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) provides that an order granting an injunction is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise. See G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., 639 F.2d 29, 36 (1st Cir. 1980) ('[D]efendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original proceeding.') (citation omitted). Safety Products argues that the district court erred in finding that Ronald Pasqualino was legally identified with Safety Products, and therefore personally bound by the settlement agreement. 3 23 The legal identification test focuses on whether Ronald Pasqualino's participation in Safety Products was sufficiently significant to make him a de facto participant in the Settlement Agreement. See id. at 37-38. Safety Products acknowledges that the factual finding of legal identification may not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. See id. at 38. There is ample record support. 24 Ronald co-founded Safety Products. Safety Products' attorney referred to Ronald as its co-owner. Ronald designed the 007 spray can logo, and applied for the trademark. See id. (Advertisements designed, written, and placed by [the legally identified person] precipitated the injunction.). During the period from 1994-97, Ronald received more than $10,000 in compensation for services performed for Safety Products, which amount was deducted by Safety Products on its tax returns as a business expense. Angelo Pasqualino consulted Ronald during the settlement negotiations with Danjaq, and sent him copies of the Agreement and related documents for review. See Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d 11, 20 (1st Cir. 1991) (noting that Merriam test is satisfied where the legally identified person enjoyed substantial control . . . decisionmaking with respect to [defendant's] litigation position). Safety Products paid Ronald $50,000 (Ronnie's share) from the $150,000 it received from Danjaq under the Settlement Agreement. See id. (The record supports an inference that [the legally identified person's] responsibilities were substantial, as was his expectation of remuneration if the venture was successful.). 25 Safety Products neither contends that the district court findings lack record support nor that the above-cited evidence is immaterial to the legal identification inquiry. Rather, it catalogs snippets of evidence which might conceivably support a contrary finding. Since the district court was the factfinder, however, and none of the catalogued evidence conclusively established that Ronald was not legally identified with Safety Products, we will not disturb its factual finding. 4 Ramos v. Davis & Geck, Inc., 167 F.3d 727, 733 (1st Cir. 1999) ('[W]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.') (citation omitted). 26 Affirmed; costs to appellees.