United Artists Corporation v. United Artist Studios LLC

United States District Court for the Central District of California

United Artists Corporation v. United Artist Studios LLC

Trial Court Opinion

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 UNITED ARTISTS CORPORATION, a Case No. 2:19-CV-828-MWF (MAAx) Delaware corporation, 12 AMENDED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 13 Plaintiff,

14 v. 15 UNITED ARTIST STUDIOS LLC, a 16 Nevada limited liability company; 17 UNITED ARTIST FILM FESTIVAL LLC, a Nevada limited liability 18 company; XLI TECHNOLOGIES INC., 19 a revoked Nevada corporation; XLI41 L.L.C., a Nevada limited liability 20 company; JAMES P. SCHRAMM, an 21 individual; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 AND COUNTERCLAIMS. 24

25 26 27 1 After consideration of Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant United Artists 2 Corporation’s (“United Artists”) Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining 3 Order and Preliminary Injunction Against Defendant James P. Schramm (the “Ex 4 Parte Application”) (Docket No. 83), Defendant Schramm’s Opposition (Docket No. 5 92), United Artists’ Reply (Docket No. 99), United Artists’ Ex Parte Application for 6 an Order to Show Cause Re Contempt and Sanctions (Docket No. 112), Schramm’s 7 Opposition (Docket No. 115), Schramm’s Response to the Court’s Order to Show 8 Cause Re: Contempt and Sanctions (Docket No. 118), United Artists’ Reply 9 (Docket No. 120), all other papers filed herein, and the records of the case, and 10 pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 11 The Court now ORDERS as follows: 12 1. Defendant James P. Schramm is ENJOINED during the pendency of 13 this lawsuit from directly or indirectly making any harassing or threatening 14 communications to anyone connected with this lawsuit, including but not limited to 15 Daniel Flores, any employees of United Artists Corporation (“United Artists”) or 16 Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc. (“MGM”), any lawyers for United Artists or 17 MGM, any lawyers or employees at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 18 (“Sheppard Mullin”), or any other person working on this lawsuit. 19 2. For the guidance of the parties, the Court provides a list of conduct 20 from which Defendant James P. Schramm is specifically enjoined during the 21 pendency of this lawsuit. However, this list is not meant to be exhaustive, and 22 Defendant James P. Schramm is ENJOINED from directly or indirectly making 23 any harassing or threatening communication to anyone connected with this lawsuit, 24 as ordered in paragraph 1, whether or not that communication or person is 25 specifically listed below. As the Ninth Circuit has held, the term “‘harass’ . . . [is] 26 not esoteric or complicated term[] devoid of common understanding.” United States 27 v. Osinger,

753 F.3d 939, 945

(9th Cir. 2014). 1 3. For the guidance of the parties, Defendant James P. Schramm is 2 specifically ENJOINED during the pendency of this lawsuit from directly or 3 indirectly communicating with Daniel Flores and his family in any manner and for 4 any purpose. 5 4. For the guidance of the parties, Defendant James P. Schramm is 6 specifically ENJOINED during the pendency of this lawsuit from directly or 7 indirectly sending emails, sending texts, making telephone calls, or otherwise 8 communicating with any employees of United Artists or MGM, any lawyers for 9 United Artists or MGM, or any lawyers or employees at Sheppard Mullin regarding 10 any of the following: 11 (a) the facts underlying this lawsuit; 12 (b) the substance of this lawsuit; 13 (c) matters relating to this lawsuit; 14 (d) conduct related to this lawsuit; 15 (e) any information that personally identifies Daniel Flores and his 16 family, either by name or description; 17 (f) any information that personally identifies employees of United 18 Artists or MGM, either by name or description; and 19 (g) any information that personally identifies any lawyers for United 20 Artists or MGM; and 21 (h) any information that personally identifies lawyers or employees 22 at Sheppard Mullin; and 23 (i) any information that personally any other person working on this 24 lawsuit, either by name or description. 25 5. Defendant James P. Schramm is specifically ENJOINED during the 26 pendency of this lawsuit from posting any harassing or threatening content within 27 the city limits of the City of Beverly Hills, California, a compact municipality that 1 Hills, California 90210-5317. Defendant James P. Schramm is further specifically 2 ENJOINED from posting any such content within 200 feet of the entrance of the 3 United Artists and MGM office at that address, if such a location falls outside the 4 city limits of Beverly Hills. For the guidance of the parties, the content described in 5 this paragraph includes, but is not limited to, the content described in paragraph 4 6 above. 7 6. For the guidance of the parties, Defendant James P. Schramm is further 8 specifically ENJOINED from posting the following on any website or blog or 9 Internet forum of any sort the following: 10 (a) Any statement in the second person (i.e., “you”) directed to 11 Daniel Flores, any employee of United Artists or MGM, any 12 lawyer for United Artists or MGM, or any lawyer or employee of 13 Sheppard Mullin or any other person working on this lawsuit; 14 and 15 (b) Any reference whatsoever to a family member of Daniel Flores, 16 any employee of United Artists or MGM, any lawyer for United 17 Artists or MGM, any lawyer or employee at Sheppard Mullin, or 18 any other person working on this lawsuit. 19 7. Defendant James P. Schramm is further ORDERED to remove any 20 statement referenced in paragraph 6 from any website or blog or Internet forum of 21 any sort that is under his control or for which he has the ability to do so. 22 8. Defendant James P. Schramm is further ENJOINED from performing 23 any of these actions through another person or by use of a subterfuge. This 24 Preliminary Injunction shall not be construed to prohibit communications between 25 the counsel of record for the parties. 26 27 l This Amended Preliminary Injunction SUPERSEDES the Court’s prior 2 || Preliminary Injunction, issued on October 17, 2019. (Docket No. 103). 3 = 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. desea He Ae) 5 Dated: November 27, 2019 6 MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown