Hinchliffe Sports Partners v. Football Is For The Fans Ltd.

Background

On October 5, 2025, pro se Defendant Scott Michaels filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from the court’s earlier order granting Plaintiff Hinchliffe Sports Partners, LLC d/b/a Cosmos a preliminary injunction. Michaels also appealed an order denying his application for appointment of counsel.

Motions and Authority

The court explained that an appeal generally removes the district court’s control over the parts of the case involved in the appeal. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, when a timely motion seeks relief that the district court lacks authority to grant because of a pending appeal, the court may deny the motion.

Ruling

Because Michaels’s appeal involved the preliminary injunction, the court said it lacked authority to decide the following motions and therefore denied each one without prejudice:

- ECF No. 43, an amended motion seeking to dissolve or modify the preliminary injunction; - ECF No. 50, a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service, or alternatively to dissolve or vacate the preliminary injunction; - ECF No. 53, a motion to clarify, modify, or suspend the preliminary injunction; - ECF No. 57, a second amended motion to dissolve or vacate the preliminary injunction; and - ECF No. 85, a motion seeking vacatur or dissolution of the preliminary injunction.

The court stated that the preliminary injunction remains fully effective unless and until a stay of enforcement is granted. It also stated that Plaintiff’s application for contempt sanctions against Michaels would proceed in the district court. The court scheduled a contempt hearing to be arranged during a telephonic status conference on October 15, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. The order did not decide the merits of Michaels’s jurisdiction, service, or preliminary-injunction arguments.