Opinion ID: 3054041
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevant Comity Concerns

Text: My disagreement with my colleagues arises from their view that because our circuit and the Fifth Circuit embrace distinct interpretations of § 4.33.3, the nationwide injunction implicates principles of comity. The error in their analysis is that they focus on the wrong “conflict.” The critical issue is not that the Ninth and Fifth Circuits have announced different interpretations of § 4.33.3—the Ninth requiring comparable viewing angles and the Fifth merely an unobstructed view of the screen. Rather, the issue is whether AMC’s compliance with the nationwide injunction would require it to act in conflict with any law, obligation, or requirement in the Fifth Circuit or Texas. It would not. The Fifth Circuit certainly has every right to interpret law governing those states within its territory inconsistently with our view of the same law. However, I do not see—and the majority does not explain—how the district court’s remedial order impairs the Fifth Circuit’s power to do so. Specifically, nothing in a nationwide injunction against AMC could possibly threaten the independence or sovereignty of the Fifth Circuit, and it is simply incorrect to assert, as the majority does, that the injunction “requires conduct by AMC in the Fifth Circuit’s geographic area that the Fifth Circuit rejected.” Under the injunction, as the district court noted in its summary judgment order, “AMC would not be faced with a choice between complying with this Court’s orders and the [Fifth Circuit]’s orders.” Were the nationwide injunction to issue, the law in the Fifth Circuit would remain unchanged, and all persons in the Fifth Circuit would remain bound by its statement of the law. Nor would AMC’s remedial actions violate or undermine the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of § 4.33.3. In Lara v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 207 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2000), the Fifth Circuit held that, at a minimum, § 4.33.3 requires theaters to 15966 UNITED STATES v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT, INC. provide an unobstructed view for disabled spectators. See id. at 789. Requiring AMC to provide an even better viewing angle—not just unobstructed, but also comparable—does not create a conflict, and it is clear that AMC could remodel its theaters on its own initiative without violating the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of § 4.33.3.4 In the international context, the Supreme Court has spoken clearly to what constitutes a cognizable comity conflict. Hartford Fire presented the question of whether comity permitted a U.S. district court to consider certain Sherman Act antitrust claims against a group of London reinsurers. 509 U.S. at 77879. Regarding comity, the Court framed the only “substantial question” as “whether there is in fact a true conflict between domestic and foreign law.” Id. at 798 (internal quotation marks omitted). The London reinsurers, joined by the British Government as amicus curiae, argued that comity counseled against the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction, because the British Parliament had “established a comprehensive regulatory regime . . . and . . . the conduct alleged here was perfectly consistent with British law and policy.” Id. at 798-99. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the “fact that conduct is lawful in the state in which it took place will not, of itself, bar application of the United States antitrust laws, even where the foreign state has a strong policy to permit or encourage such conduct.” Id. at 799 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court explained: “No conflict exists, for these purposes, where a person subject to regulation by two states can comply with the laws of both.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 The litigating position that has been consistently advanced by the DOJ in the years since Lara was decided provides sufficient “specific regulatory guidance” to cast doubt upon Lara’s continuing viability. See Lara v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 207 F.3d 783, 788-89 (5th Cir. 2000) (resting its holding on the “absence of specific regulatory guidance”). That is a question for courts within the Fifth Circuit; regardless of the answer, a nationwide injunction against AMC is appropriate. UNITED STATES v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT, INC. 15967 Hartford Fire provides clear support for the district court’s issuance of a nationwide injunction against AMC. Since the AMC defendants cannot show that “[Fifth Circuit] law requires them to act in some fashion prohibited by the law of the [Ninth Circuit] or . . . that their compliance with the laws of both [circuits] is otherwise impossible,” the district court’s remedial order does not create a conflict that implicates comity concerns. Id.; see also In re Simon, 153 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 1998) (confirming that “general principles of international comity” are “limited to cases in which there is in fact a true conflict between domestic and foreign law” (internal quotation marks omitted)).