Chesapeake Bank v. Stuart Berger

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00066-RAJ-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999696574]. Mailed to: Deborah Berger, Stuart Berger, Thomas Carnes, Harrison Gates, Belinda Jones, Michael Mueller. [15-1667]

Appeal: 15-1667

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1667

CHESAPEAKE BANK,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STUART D. BERGER; DEBORAH D. BERGER,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
BERGER PROPERTIES OF OHIO, LLC; BERGER PROPERTIES OF
FLORIDA, LLC; BERGER PROPERTIES OF TEXAS, LLC; BERGER
PROPERTIES OF MARYLAND, LLC; S & D UNLIMITED OF TEXAS, LLC;
S & D UNLIMITED, LLC; THE UNLIMITED GROUP, INC.; LAW OFFICES
OF STUART BERGER, PLLC,
Defendants
KEITH M. NORTHERN; ROBERT B. SMITH
Receiver.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:14-cv-00066-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted:

October 29, 2015

Decided:

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

November 10, 2015

Appeal: 15-1667

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

Stuart D. Berger, Deborah D. Berger, Appellants Pro Se.
Augustus Charles Epps, Jr., Harrison Mann Gates, Rowland Braxton
Hill, IV, Belinda Duke Jones, Michael David Mueller, CHRISTIAN &
BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1667

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Stuart Berger and Deborah Berger appeal from the district
court’s order imposing contempt fines and its subsequent order
denying in part their motion for reconsideration.

The Bergers

contend that the nature of the contempt was criminal rather than
civil.

We conclude that the contempt was civil.

The imposition

of the per diem fine was plainly designed to coerce the Bergers’
compliance with the court’s preliminary injunction, consistent
with one of the primary aims of civil contempt.

See Int’l

Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 82729 (1994).
This

court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545
(1949).

Because

the

contempt

is

civil

in

nature,

jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal.

we

lack

See Consol.

Coal Co. v. Local 1702, United Mineworkers of Am., 683 F.2d 827,
830 n.3 (4th Cir. 1982) (“[A] civil contempt proceeding is in
effect a continuance of the main action and therefore a party to
a suit may not review upon appeal an order fining or imprisoning
him for civil contempt except in connection with appeal from a
final judgment of the main claim.”).
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
3

Accordingly, we dismiss
We dispense with oral

Appeal: 15-1667

Doc: 16

Filed: 11/10/2015

Pg: 4 of 4

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

4