Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp.

Background

Vendo, a company that had collected state-court judgments, asked this Court to clarify its earlier decision after a district court kept a preliminary injunction in place. Earlier, this Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, which had affirmed the district court’s issuance of the injunction, and the case was remanded to the district court. After remand the district court declined to dissolve the injunction, and Vendo sought clarification from this Court about whether the injunction must be lifted.

Reasoning

The Court explained that Vendo’s filing is effectively a request to force the lower court to carry out the Supreme Court’s mandate — in other words, a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court said mandamus can be used when a lower court fails to execute a mandate, but Rule 31 requires that any petition or motion for mandamus be served on the judge to whom it is directed. The papers did not show that the district judge had been served, so the Court denied the motion for clarification without ruling on whether the injunction should be dissolved.

Real world impact

Vendo must now seek leave to file a formal mandamus petition and serve the district judge before this Court will consider forcing the lower court to act. Until the district court lifts the injunction, that injunction remains in effect and Vendo risks contempt if it tries to enforce state-court judgments. This order is procedural and does not resolve the underlying merits of the injunction.

Dissents or concurrances

The opinion notes that the earlier Supreme Court decision included a plurality and a concurrence that reversed the Seventh Circuit, while four Justices dissented and would have affirmed, which explains the need to clarify mandate execution.