Can the Doctrine of Laches Serve as a Defense to Injunctive Relief?

Can the doctrine of laches serve as a defense to injunctive relief? Last week the First Circuit noted in Oriental Fin. Group, Inc. v. Cooperativa De Ahorro Crédito Oriental that seven of the eight federal circuits that have answered this question have done so in the affirmative:

"The argument that laches is never a defense to an injunction, no matter what the equities, has been asserted and rejected in several cases." 6 McCarthy, supra, § 31:6 n.2.

The general rule of the circuits, as quoted with approvalby Professor McCarthy, has been that "'mere delay' will not, by itself, bar a plaintiff's suit, but there must be some element of estoppel, such as reliance by the defendant. . . . All this means, however, is that a balancing of the equities is required, which would be the case with any principle of equity." 6 Id. § 31:6 (quoting Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. v. Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037, 1040 (2d Cir. 1980)). This view is corroborated by a majority of the circuits. See, e.g., Ray Commc'ns, Inc. v. Clear Channel Broad., Inc., 673 F.3d 294, 307 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting that "laches may act as a bar to both monetary and injunctive relief under certain circumstances," such as where aggravating factors cause the balance of the equities to strongly favor the defendant (emphasis in original)); Univ. of Pitt. v. Champion Prods., Inc., 686 F.2d 1040, 1045 (3d Cir. 1982) (noting that cases can "give rise to affirmative rights in the defendant as a result of detrimental reliance" under a laches theory, but that cases involving "meredelay" will not bar prospective injunctive relief); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Gibraltar Fin. Corp., 694 F.2d 1150, 1152 n.1 (9th Cir.1982) (noting that that "[t]here is a wealth of authority in other circuits that laches can bar injunctive relief" and citing several cases where the balancing of the equities favored the defendant); Armco, Inc. v. Armco Burglar Alarm Co., Inc., 693 F.2d 1155, 1161 n.14, 1161-62 (5th Cir. 1982) (noting that "[t]here is no doubt that laches may defeat claims for injunctive relief" and considering the equitable factors involved in the laches defense); Saratoga Vichy Spring Co., 625 F.2d at 1040 (noting that a balancing of the equities beyond "mere delay" is needed to bar the plaintiff's prayer for injunctive relief under a laches theory); Seven-Up Co. v. O-So-Grape Co., 283 F.2d 103, 106 (7th Cir. 1960) ("Laches does not necessarily constitute a conclusive and automatic bar to injunctive relief in trademark actions. However, in many instances, the delay may be so prolonged and inexcusable that it would be inequitable to permit the plaintiff to seek injunctive relief as to future activities.").

Nos. 11-1473 & 11-1476, at n.9 (1st Cir. Oct. 18, 2012).

Which circuit is the lone dissenter? If you guessed “Sixth Circuit,” you are correct:

Currently only the Sixth Circuit has suggested that laches cannot be a defense to injunctive relief. Kellogg Co. v. Exxon Corp., 209 F.3d 562, 568 (6th Cir. 2000) ("Although laches precludes a plaintiff from recovering damages, it does not barin junctive relief."). McCarthy suggests that "a careful reading of [this case] reveals either that such language was dictum, that [the case was] lacking the traditional elements of an estoppel by laches or that [it] was merely referring to 'delay' per se." 6 McCarthy, supra, § 31:6. Indeed, Kellogg acknowledges that 'there is that narrow class of cases where the plaintiff's delay has been so outrageous, unreasonable and inexcusable as to constitute a virtual abandonment of its right.'" 209 F.3d at 569 (quoting Univ. Of Pitt., 686 F.2d at 1044).

Id.

Comments

[Nicholas J. Wagoner]

That's an interesting observation Kathryn. The Second Circuit case quoted above was decided in 1980. It sounds like the Second Circuit has shifted toward the minority viewpoint. Thanks for the comment!

[Kathryn Fort]

Huh. Recently the Second Circuit hasn't been remotely interested in balancing the equities in laches cases. Laches was applied to the Oneida Nation by the Supreme Court in Sherrill, and then used against the Cayuga Nation in the Second Circuit (barring all forms of relief, including monetary). Even more interestingly, the Second Circuit just denied the Onondaga Nation from "balancing the equities" last week.

http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/2nd-circuit-affirms-lower-court-dismissal-of-onondaga-land-claim/