MillerCoors LLC v. Anheuser-Busch Cos. - LLC, 940 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2019)

Rule:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) requires every injunction to be set forth without referring to any other document. Rule 65 requires a separate document setting forth the terms of such an injunction.

Facts:

On May 24, 2019, the district court entered an opinion that concluded with language that the judge believed would serve as a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff, MillerCoors, filed an appeal docketed as No. 19-2200. But the district court did not comply with HN1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C), which requires every injunction to be set forth without referring to any other document. While the plaintiff’s appeal was pending, the district court entered another opinion stating that it was modifying the decision. Defendant Anheuser-Busch's then appealed. 

Issue:

Was the district court’s action on issuing a preliminary injunction opinion while an appeal was pending in accordance with the procedure?

Answer:

No. The court limited remand ordered with instructions.

Conclusion:

The court held that the district court did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) in issuing a preliminary injunction opinion and while an appeal was pending, attempted to modify the first opinion but did not follow the Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 procedure, discuss the rule that only one court at a time had jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in an appeal, comply with Rule 65(d), or modify the injunction as a condition of a stay or bond pending appeal as Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) permitted. Also, a second appeal was filed, and an attempted modification of the second opinion did not discuss the court's jurisdiction to do so, rely on Rule 62(d), follow the Rule 62.1 procedure, or comply with Rule 65(d). Then, a limited remand was ordered with instructions to enter the injunction on a document separate from the opinions.