Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-1167 Blockowicz v. Williams

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 27, 2010//

10-1167 Blockowicz v. Williams

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//December 27, 2010//

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Injunctions

Rule 65 (d)(2)(C) is not the appropriate remedy for compelling a website manager to remove defamatory material.

“With sympathy for the Blockowiczs, we conclude that Rule 65(d)(2)(C) is not the appropriate mechanism for achieving the removal of the defendants’ posts. Xcentric and Magedson have simply failed to act in any way relevant to this dispute since agreeing to the Terms of Service with the defendants, which they did before the injunction was issued and before the statements at issue were even posted. Rule 65(d)(2)(C) is not broad enough to bind Xcentric and Magedson to the terms of this injunction in light of their inactivity. We, therefore, must affirm the district court’s decision that neither Xcentric nor Magedson fall within Rule 65(d)(2)(C). The Blockowiczs likely could have pursued a contempt charge against the defendants for their failure to comply with the injunction. This avenue for relief may still be available. But Rule 65(d)(2)(C) affords the Blockowiczs no remedy against Xcentric and Magedson.”

Affirmed.

10-1167 Blockowicz v. Williams

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Holderman, J., Flaum, J.

Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

Case Digests

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests