White v. Alcon Film Fund, LLC, 955 F. Supp. 2d 1381

Plaintiff Franklin White alleges the film Lottery Ticket infringes his copyright in the book First Round Lottery Pick and moved for a preliminary injunction to halt production, sale, marketing, and public materials related to the film.
The film at issue was released nearly three years before the motion; White filed an amended complaint and submitted an expert report with that complaint but did not attach any evidence or his own declaration to the preliminary-injunction motion.
White’s motion largely contained conclusory assertions and a single-sentence legal argument claiming a substantial likelihood of success; his reply referenced an expert report that was not offered in support of the motion.
Defendants argued that an injunction would impose substantial expense and disruption by forcing cessation of distribution, promotion, and removal of existing materials.
The court evaluated the standard for preliminary injunctions under Eleventh Circuit law (substantial likelihood of success on the merits required) and considered but rejected White’s attempt to invoke the more lenient “serious question” standard applied in some other circuits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Likelihood of success on the merits	White asserted (conclusorily) he has a substantial likelihood of success and relied on an expert report	Defendants challenged substantive showing and noted lack of legal analysis or supporting evidence	Denied — White failed to show substantial likelihood; one-sentence assertion and no supporting legal evidence insufficient
Applicable standard for preliminary injunction	White argued Ninth and Eleventh Circuits adopt a “serious question” standard	Defendants maintained Eleventh Circuit requires substantial likelihood of success	Denied — Court applied Eleventh Circuit standard (substantial likelihood). Even under a serious-question standard, White failed to meet its requirements
Irreparable harm	White claimed immediate and irreparable damages from continued production and distribution of the film	Defendants emphasized the film’s release long before suit and the burden an injunction would impose	Denied — Court found irreparable harm unlikely given delay and lack of specific proof of imminent injury
Balance of hardships and public interest	White asserted harm from ongoing distribution; argued public interest supports relief	Defendants argued injunction would cause substantial expense and disruption; public interest favors competition absent clear infringement	Denied — White did not show hardships tip sharply in his favor; public interest weighed against injunctive relief absent clear infringement

Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) (preliminary injunction is a drastic remedy; movant must carry burden on all elements)
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800-Contacts, Inc., 299 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2002) (four-factor preliminary-injunction framework)
Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 781 F.2d 1450 (11th Cir. 1986) (likelihood of success is the most important factor)
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious-questions standard described for some circuits)
Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v. City of New York, 615 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2010) (discusses serious-questions alternative to likelihood standard)
Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Bridwell, 103 F.3d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (delay in bringing suit can negate irreparable-injury showing)
Tiber Labs., LLC v. Hawthorn Pharma., Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (delay and lack of immediacy undermine irreparable-harm claim)
Graham Webb Int’l v. Helene Curtis Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 919 (D. Minn. 1998) (public interest may favor permitting competition absent clear infringement)
Medi-Flex, Inc. v. Nice-Pak Prods., Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (D. Kan. 2006) (similar public-interest analysis)
Alltel Corp. v. Actel Integrated Communications, 42 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Ala. 1999) (same)