Opinion ID: 723390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Issue a Permanent Injunction

Text: 24 The government contends that the court abused its discretion in refusing to issue a permanent injunction. See United States v. Yacoubian, 24 F.3d 1, 3 (9th Cir.1994). In FLSA cases, a district court does not have unfettered discretion on whether to grant an injunction. [Alt]hough the district court has discretion to deny injunctive relief in appropriate cases, this discretion is limited by consideration of the importance of prospective relief as a means of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the FLSA. Brock v. Shirk, 833 F.2d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir.1987), judgment vacated on other grounds, 488 U.S. 806 (1988); see also Brock v. Big Bear Market No. 3, 825 F.2d 1381, 1383 (9th Cir.1987) (The exercise of discretion is not unbridled.). 25 Our precedent weighs heavily in favor of issuing an injunction once a defendant has been found to have violated the Act. In Marshall v. Chala Enters., Inc., 645 F.2d 799, 804 (9th Cir.1981), we held that the district court abused its discretion where it failed to issue an injunction although the plaintiff was in present compliance, promised future compliance, and had learned an expensive lesson from the litigation. The court emphasized that: 26 'The injunction subjects the defendants to no penalty, to no hardship. It requires the defendants to do what the Act requires anyway--to comply with the law.... [T]he manifest difficulty of the Government's inspecting, investigating, and litigating every complaint of a violation weighs heavily in favor of enforcement by injunction--after the court has found an unquestionable violation of the Act.' 27 In exercising its discretion, the district court must give substantial weight to the fact that the Secretary seeks to vindicate a public, and not a private, right. 28 Id. (citations omitted). Multiple violations of the FLSA favor granting of an injunction. See Big Bear, 825 F.2d at 1383. 29 Although the court found that the defendants were not likely to violate the Act in the future, its decision is not consistent with our precedent or with the remedial goals of the FLSA. We reverse and remand for imposition of a permanent injunction.