Remedies Reading Assignments For 10/8, we will finish discussing the reading from Monday. Review WT Grant and related questions. Also read pp. 221-32. Keep in mind the following questions: 1. Is the ripeness issue in Nicholson the same as the one presented in Al Murbati? What is the difference? Do the defendants in Nicholson have a propensity to do what plaintiffs seek to keep them from doing? If so, why is the issue not ripe? What could plaintiffs in Nicholson have argued to make the threatened injury seem more ripe? 2. What does the plaintiff seek to enjoin the defendant from doing in Pepsico? Is that illegal? Why does the court find that the injunction should issue anyway? How is this situation different from Nicholson? 3. In some ways, both Nicholson & Pepsico raise the issue of when prophylactic relief should be available – i.e., when should P get an injunction that clearly goes beyond the actual wrongful conduct (even to the point of prohibiting lawful conduct) in order to reduce the likelihood of unlawful consequences. a. When, if ever, should such relief be available? What limits should there be on such relief? Does it comport with the notion of rightful position we saw guiding damages estimations? b. What is the line between an injunction that is necessary prophylaxis and one that is too intrusive – consider the cases in nn. 5-8 after Pepsico. i. We will especially talk about the case in n. 5 (Wilson Metal Casket). ii. Given the facts of Wilson Metal Casket, is the scope of the court’s injunction justified? What are the arguments for and against such an injunction? iii. Prophylactic relief is usually used when narrower injunctions have failed or are clearly unlikely to achieve the desired result. What injunctive relief should the court order in Wilson Metal Casket if the original injunction it ordered doesn’t work? c. Why can’t we view the requested/original injunctions in Al Murbati (assuming it was ripe) and Marshall simply as prophylactic injunctions? Are there problems with labeling them as such? How are they different from the injunctions in Pepsico or in the notes following?