Opinion ID: 2403365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: The district court's August 5, 2009 TRO

Text: The Appellants contend that the district court erred in granting a TRO in favor of ClearOne on August 5, 2009. [11] We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision to grant a TRO. Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Stovall, 341 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (10th Cir.2003). The standard for abuse of discretion is high. Id. at 1205. The appellant must show that the district court committed an error of law (for example, by applying the wrong legal standard) or committed clear error in its factual findings. Id. We have previously described abuse of discretion as an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgment. Id. at 1205-06 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Appellants contend the district court abused its discretion because the August 5, 2009 TRO was not based upon a full review of all relevant facts. . . . Aplt. Br. at 62 (emphasis in original). This is because, they complain, they were not allowed to refute ClearOne's evidence or to offer evidence of their own. . . . Id. Further, they argue, there were no `merits' to have success upon, as, save a Motion to extend the reach of its Permanent Injunction, ClearOne has filed no causes of action against DialHD, and it is apparent that ClearOne has no intention of doing so for the foreseeable future. Id. As ClearOne notes persuasively in response, however, any challenges to the August 5, 2009 TRO have been rendered moot by the district court's issuance of (a) the November 19, 2009 contempt order, which amended the permanent injunction to add DialHD and Longoo products to the order's definition of Infringing Products, and expressly named DialHD and Longoo as entities enjoined under the order, JA at D22290-353, and (b) the August 13, 2010 second amended permanent injunction, which, pursuant to the findings set forth in the district court's contempt order of that same date, added Donald Bowers as a person being enjoined, id. at D23423-57. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 314, 119 S.Ct. 1961, 144 L.Ed.2d 319 (1999) (Generally, an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction becomes moot when the trial court enters a permanent injunction, because the former merges into the latter.); Smith v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 270 U.S. 587, 588, 46 S.Ct. 408, 70 L.Ed. 747 (1926) (holding that order granting preliminary injunction was not appealable because permanent injunction was subsequently granted and thus the interlocutory injunction had become merged in the final decree). Even if we were to assume that the Appellants' challenges to the August 5, 2009 TRO have not been rendered moot, we conclude there is no merit to those challenges. To the extent the Appellants complain that they were not allowed to present evidence relevant to the issuance of the TRO, that is because they chose not to appear in person at the July 31, 2009 contempt hearing that resulted in the issuance of the August 5, 2009 TRO. Consequently, as the district court expressly warned in its July 17, 2009 show cause order, they were precluded from offering testimony, offering witnesses, or cross-examining witnesses. JA at D20413 (emphasis omitted). In other words, although they would have been afforded the opportunity to present witnesses and exhibits, and to cross-examine ClearOne's witnesses, had they personally appeared at the contempt hearing, they intentionally waived those rights by choosing not to personally appear at the contempt hearing. Moreover, the Appellants were subsequently afforded several opportunities by the district court, after the issuance of the August 5, 2009 TRO, to submit evidence and arguments and to appear at hearings on the contempt issues prior to the issuance of the August 13, 2010 second amended permanent injunction. We likewise reject the Appellants' argument that there were no `merits' to have success upon, as, save a Motion to extend the reach of its Permanent Injunction, ClearOne has filed no causes of action against DialHD, and it is apparent that ClearOne has no intention of doing so for the foreseeable future. Aplt. Br. at 62. Appellants have not, as required by 10th Cir. R. 28.2(C)(2), cit[ed] the precise reference in the record where the issue was raised and ruled on. And our own review of the voluminous record on appeal fails to establish that DialHD ever asserted any such argument below. Consequently, the argument is not properly before us on appeal. See McKissick v. Yuen, 618 F.3d 1177, 1189 (10th Cir.2010).