Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A publisher stopped paying royalties and invoked a mandatory arbitration clause. The court held that federal courts can still issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo, ensuring the subsequent arbitration is not a meaningless exercise for a party facing imminent business collapse.
Legal Significance: Establishes in the Sixth Circuit that a mandatory arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not strip a district court of its equitable power to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent irreparable harm that would render arbitration a “hollow formality.”
Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Performance Unlimited, Inc. (“Performance”) and Questar Publishers, Inc. (“Questar”) entered into a licensing agreement for the publication of The Beginner’s Bible. The agreement required Questar to pay royalties to Performance and contained a mandatory arbitration clause stating it was the “sole and exclusive remedy” for any disputes. A conflict arose, and Questar ceased paying royalties, instead depositing the accrued funds ($184,484.94) into an escrow account and invoking the arbitration clause. Performance filed suit and moved for a preliminary injunction, requiring Questar to pay the royalties. Performance submitted evidence that the royalties constituted over 60% of its revenue and that without them, it would face insolvency and business collapse, thereby rendering any future arbitration award meaningless. The district court denied the injunction, holding that the mandatory arbitration provision precluded it from intervening on the merits of the dispute.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a mandatory arbitration clause under § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act divest a federal district court of its authority to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration?
Yes. The district court erred as a matter of law by concluding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a mandatory arbitration clause under § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act divest a federal district court of its authority to issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration?
Conclusion
This case establishes the precedent in the Sixth Circuit that courts retain Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqui
Legal Rule
A district court has subject matter jurisdiction to grant a preliminary injunction Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolo
Legal Analysis
In this case of first impression for the circuit, the court adopted Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut ali
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A district court may issue a preliminary injunction in a dispute