Judgment & Permanent Injunction
Merrifield et al. v. Lockyer et al.
On May 29, 2009 a JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION in the case of Merrifield v. Lockyer was signed by District Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney. Copies of this order were delivered to all parties.
“The issued court order states:
“the Court hereby enters judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants. Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing against plaintiffs section 8555(g) of the California Business & Professions Code to the extent such section requires Branch 2 licensure for persons engaged in the live capture and removal or exclusion of mice, rats, or pigeons from a structure without the use of pesticides, provided those persons maintain insurance coverage as described in section 8692.”
PLAINTIFFS INCLUDE: California Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators Association, Alan Merrifield, (as an individual), and Urban Wildlife Management (a business owned by Merrifield).
DEFENDANTS INCLUDE: Registrar and Members of the California Structural Pest Control Board and Protest Officer, California Department of Transportation
* * * * *
*The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Persons Bound.
The [Permanent Injunction] order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:
(A) the parties;
(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).
Rule 65(d)(2) clarifies two ambiguities in former Rule 65(d). The former rule was adapted from former 28 U.S.C. §363, but omitted a comma that made clear the common doctrine that a party must have actual notice of an injunction in order to be bound by it. Amended Rule 65(d) restores the meaning of the earlier statute, and also makes clear the proposition that an injunction can be enforced against a person who acts in concert with a party's officer, agent, servant, employee, or attorney.