Plant v. Does
19 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court lacks jurisdiction to issue an ex parte temporary restraining order and seizure order against unknown, unserved 'John Doe' defendants for potential future conduct, as such a request fails to establish personal jurisdiction and does not present a justiciable 'case or controversy' under Article III of the Constitution.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, former members of the band Led Zeppelin, were on a nationwide music tour.
- Plaintiffs and their licensed companies own the intellectual property rights to their names, likenesses, and the Led Zeppelin trademark.
- Plaintiffs anticipated that unknown individuals, referred to as 'bootleggers,' would sell unauthorized souvenir merchandise bearing their likenesses or logos at an upcoming concert in Miami.
- Plaintiffs alleged that these bootleggers travel from concert to concert selling their merchandise.
- Plaintiffs sought a court order authorizing U.S. Marshals to seize any allegedly infringing merchandise within a twenty-five mile radius of their concerts.
- Plaintiffs did not identify or attempt to identify any specific bootleggers before filing the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Plant, Page, and their companies) filed an Ex Parte Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order of Seizure in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a federal trial court.
- The motion was filed against 'Various John Does' and other unknown defendants.
- The District Court held an ex parte oral argument with the Plaintiffs' counsel.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court have jurisdiction to issue a nationwide, ex parte temporary restraining order and seizure order against unknown 'John Doe' defendants who have not yet engaged in any specific infringing conduct and have not been served with process?
Opinions:
Majority - District Judge James Lawrence King
No. A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to issue an ex parte order against unknown and unserved defendants to prevent potential future infringing activity. First, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the unknown defendants because they have not been identified or served with process, and plaintiffs made no effort to discover their identities. A court does not have the power to enjoin the behavior of the world at large. Second, the action is not justiciable because it does not present an actual 'case or controversy' as required by Article III. The proceeding is not truly adversarial, as the defendants are absent, and the alleged harm is speculative and has not yet occurred. Granting the relief would require the court to improperly exercise legislative and executive powers by creating a law for seizure and then ordering its execution. Finally, the court heavily criticized plaintiffs' counsel for creating an 'artificial emergency' by filing at the last minute and for failing to disclose adverse legal authority, a breach of their ethical duty as officers of the court.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental constitutional limits on federal judicial power, specifically the requirements of personal jurisdiction and a justiciable case or controversy. It serves as a strong precedent against the use of broad, ex parte 'John Doe' injunctions to prevent speculative future harm, emphasizing that procedural due process cannot be circumvented for convenience. The opinion also provides a stark reminder of attorneys' ethical obligations to disclose adverse authority, particularly in ex parte proceedings where the opposing party cannot present its case. This ruling makes it significantly harder for rights holders to obtain preemptive seizure orders against unidentified potential infringers without first conducting a diligent investigation to identify them.
Unlock the full brief for Plant v. Does