Multi-Channel Tv Cable Company, D/B/A Adelphia Cable Communications v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Operating Company, a Virginia Corporation Rivanna Partnership, a Virginia General Partnership Alcova Realty & Management Company Fountain Court Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership John A. Schwab, Jr. Bernard A. Schwab C. Stuart Raynor, Jr.

Citations: 60 F.3d 823; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 24847; 1995 WL 406612Docket: 94-2569

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; July 11, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) discourages the citation of unpublished dispositions, except for specific legal purposes, and mandates that copies of such citations be served. In the case of Multi-Channel TV Cable Company, d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Operating Company, the court addressed Adelphia's appeal against a magistrate judge's refusal to modify a preliminary injunction regarding Adelphia's rights to provide cable services to multi-dwelling apartment complexes (MDUs). CQC opposed the modification, arguing that the circumstances had not significantly changed. The original injunction, issued on December 15, 1993, prohibited CQC from servicing the MDUs and restricted MDU owners from showing preferences for cable providers. It allowed Adelphia to reconnect service to tenants with expiring leases and prevented CQC from using Adelphia's equipment. The court previously affirmed the injunction but modified it to allow MDU owners to communicate freely with tenants about cable provider choices, citing First Amendment rights. Adelphia's subsequent motion on November 8, 1994, sought further modification to regain access to MDU premises due to lease addenda that restricted tenants' cable provider choices to CQC. The court ultimately affirmed the magistrate judge's decision not to modify the injunction.

The magistrate judge denied Adelphia's request to modify the preliminary injunction (PI), determining that the reasons provided did not demonstrate a significant change in circumstances justifying the modification. Adelphia appeals this decision, arguing that new evidence indicates a necessity for modification to maintain the status quo intended by the PI, asserting that CQC's actions undermine its purpose. CQC counters that Adelphia's evidence is not genuinely new. Citing Favia v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, the legal standard for modifying a preliminary injunction requires the movant to show a significant change in circumstances rendering the original injunction inequitable. The court emphasized that modification motions do not allow for relitigation of the original injunction determination and that the review of such motions is limited to changes occurring after the injunction was granted. The denial of modification is reviewed for abuse of discretion, defined as decisions that are arbitrary or irrational. Adelphia claims that its new evidence includes assertions regarding the lack of discussion on access duration during the cable system installation, continuity of access despite tenant turnover, absence of provisions for terminating bulk service, and lack of lease restrictions on tenants’ cable provider choices. This evidence is presented as a basis for modification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1).

Rule 60(b)(2) allows for relief from a preliminary injunction based on newly discovered evidence that was not previously available through due diligence. However, modifications to a preliminary injunction require more than minor changes in facts or law. The court found that the evidence presented by Adelphia was not "new," as it was known or should have been known during the original hearing. Specific points include:

1. Any arrangements between Raynor and Price regarding Adelphia's interests existed at the time of the original hearing.
2. The turnover of tenants in the MDUs is not considered new information, as tenant changes are common and Adelphia had access to this information.
3. The discontinuation of bulk services was the basis for the litigation, negating the claim of new evidence.
4. The absence of lease language limiting tenant choices for cable providers was also known prior to the injunction.

Adelphia's failure to demonstrate why it could not avoid mistake or neglect further undermined its case for modification under Rule 60(b)(1). Consequently, the magistrate judge's decision to deny modification of the preliminary injunction was affirmed. The parties had previously elected to proceed before the magistrate judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 636.