Opinion ID: 6496059
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appeals from the Denial of Injunctive Relief

Text: Though the parties do not dispute that the district court’s denial of injunctive relief may be appealed, “federal courts have an independent obligation at each stage of the proceedings to ensure that they have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute.” Olson v. Bemis Co., 800 F.3d 296, 300 (7th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal from a district court’s order “refusing” to issue a preliminary injunction, even where no ﬁnal judgment has issued. That statute is a limited exception to the ﬁnal-judgment rule, and we construe it narrowly. Albert v. Trans Union Corp., 346 F.3d 734, 737 (7th Cir. 2003). Where the district court’s order “stripped the case of its equitable component,” the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal based on the denial of injunctive relief. Chicago Joe’s Tea Room, LLC v. Vill. of Broadview, 894 F.3d 807, 812 (7th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Here, the district court’s order denied Arrive’s motion for a preliminary injunction in full. The court did not qualify its order by stating that any claims remained pending before it, and the parties do not contest that the order disposed of each of Arrive’s claims for injunctive relief. Thus, the district court stripped the case of its equitable component, 2 and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). 2 By the terms of the 2020–21 employment agreements, Arrive’s requests for injunctive relief constitute the sole component of the disputes between Arrive and the individual defendants that may be resolved through litigation, rather than by arbitration. 8 No. 21-3101