Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dissolve a stipulated preliminary injunction requiring continued performance under a 2005 joint operating arrangement between the Las Vegas Sun and Las Vegas Review-Journal. The court held that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and concluded that the 2005 arrangement required the Attorney General’s prior written consent under the Newspaper Preservation Act. Because that consent was not obtained, the court held that the arrangement was unlawful and unenforceable under the Act, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the denial of defendants' motion to dissolve a stipulated preliminary injunction.
- Whether defendants were sufficiently aggrieved to have standing to appeal the denial of the motion to dissolve the injunction.
- Whether § 4(b) of the Newspaper Preservation Act declares an unapproved post-NPA joint operating arrangement unlawful and unenforceable, rather than merely denying it an antitrust exemption.
- Whether the 2005 amended joint operating arrangement was a joint operating arrangement not already in effect and therefore required the Attorney General's prior written consent.
Holdings
- An order explicitly denying a request to dissolve an injunction falls within 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), so the court has jurisdiction without requiring the additional irreparable-injury showing applicable to orders having only the practical effect of denying an injunction.
- When a joint operating arrangement covered by § 4(b) lacks the Attorney General's prior written consent, the arrangement is unlawful to enter into, perform, or enforce; the absence of approval does not merely remove an antitrust exemption.
- The 2005 amended JOA was a joint operating arrangement not already in effect within § 4(b), and therefore required the Attorney General's prior written consent. Because no such consent was obtained, the JOA was unlawful and unenforceable.
Key quotations
“Where, as here, “a careful examination of the ordinary meaning and structure of the law itself . . . yields a clear answer, judges must stop,” and they should not use legislative history “to ‘muddy’ the meaning of ‘clear statutory language.’”” (22–23)
“We therefore conclude that, because the 2005 JOA is a “joint newspaper operating arrangement” as described in § 3(2) and was “not already in effect” when the NPA was enacted, it is covered by § 4(b) and required the “prior written consent of the Attorney General.”” (33–34)
“We therefore reverse the district court’s order denying that motion, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (34)
Factual background
The owners of the Las Vegas Sun and Las Vegas Review-Journal entered into a 1989 joint operating arrangement that received Attorney General approval under the Newspaper Preservation Act. In 2005, the parties executed an amended and restated arrangement but did not seek or obtain the Attorney General's prior written consent. After the Review-Journal's new owners sought to terminate the arrangement, LVSI filed suit, and the parties stipulated to an injunction requiring continued performance during the litigation.
Procedural history
Las Vegas Sun, Inc. brought a federal antitrust action after the Review-Journal's owners sought to terminate the 2005 joint operating arrangement. The parties stipulated to an order maintaining the status quo and requiring continued performance under the arrangement. After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to LVSI on enforceability and denied defendants' motion to dissolve the injunction, concluding that Attorney General approval was not required under the Newspaper Preservation Act. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, following reversal of the order denying defendants' motion to dissolve the stipulated preliminary injunction.