Opinion
Case No. 8:06-cv-1100-T-23MSS.
September 18, 2006
ORDER
The parties submit (Doc. 6) a proposed "final consent judgment and order on consent" ("consent decree"). In violation of Local Rule 3.01 and Rule 7, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties file no motion or memorandum of law in support of the relief requested. Accordingly, the parties demonstrate neither that the consent decree requires judicial review and approval nor that the proposed consent decree satisfies any requirement for approval.
Notwithstanding the failure to submit a motion in support, the consent decree as proposed is REJECTED. Among other things, the proposed consent decree includes an unenforceable "obey the law" injunction. See SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1233 n. 14 (11th Cir. 2005); American Red Cross v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 143 F.3d 1407, 1412 (11th Cir. 1998) (finding that the district court may not simply order a party to "obey the law"). As submitted, the consent decree permits the plaintiff to circumvent jurisdictional and procedural requirements and assert any future unfair competition, false advertising, trademark dilution, or patent infringement action (among others, limited only by the creativity of the plaintiff) against the defendant as a motion to enforce the consent decree. See Smyth, 420 F.3d at 1233 n. 14. Further, such "obey the law" injunctions violate the specificity requirement of Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See American Red Cross, 143 F.3d at 1412.
The "Agreement" attached to the proposed consent decree establishes that no "case or controversy" persists between the parties. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to (1) terminate any pending motion and (2) close the case.
ORDERED.