Opinion ID: 1360551
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deferring Ruling on the Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction

Text: The second matter for which the Company seeks mandamus relief is a preliminary injunction that the court entered at the same time that it denied the Company's motion to dismiss and prematurely entered summary judgment and class certification for Gooch. The injunction essentially requires that the Company continue reimbursing Gooch under its old method pending the outcome of the litigation. The court issued this injunction in March of 2008, but the Company did not seek immediate interlocutory appeal. Almost one year later, the Company moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction. [7] Gooch did not immediately respond to the merits of the Company's motion. Instead, he moved to combine briefing and ruling on the motion to dissolve with the already pending motions for class certification and for class-wide injunctive relief. The basis for Gooch's motion was as cavalier as it was candid: ruling on the motion to dissolve may have the undesired effect of allowing the Company to bring an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. (Docket No. 244.) [8] In other words, Gooch was asking the court to delay ruling on the motion to dissolve in order to prevent the Company from having an immediate basis for appellate jurisdiction. The Company predictably responded that forestalling an appeal is not a proper basis for a court to defer ruling on a motion in due course. Nevertheless, the court granted Gooch's motion in July of 2009, thereby combining the motion to dissolve with Gooch's motions for class certification and class-wide injunctive relief. As of this writing, the court has not ruled on any of these motions, so the injunction remains in place. Importantly, however, the court did not base its decision to defer ruling on the motion to dissolve on Gooch's rationale of staving off an appeal. Instead, the court stated this motion is granted to the extent that the Defendants' motion to dissolve will be heard with the motion on class certification as these motions possess related issues.  (Docket No. 308 (emphasis added).) Though the order does not indicate what these related issues are, we do not find it unreasonable to accept that such issues exist. Thus, it is apparent that the court did not grant the motion for the allegedly improper reason of preventing the Company from seeking interlocutory appellate review; it granted the motion for the wholly proper purpose of conserving judicial resources by considering related issues together. Because the district court did nothing improper in this respect, we have no basis to exercise our mandamus jurisdiction. [9]