MC-UA Local 119 Health and Welfare Fund et al v. Air Comfort Company, Inc. et al

Filing 79

Order granting 78 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should not be Held in Contempt. Contempt Hearing set for 7/25/2011 at 02:00 PM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 3A, 113 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36602 before Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 7/15/2011. copies to parties & emailed to CRD. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MC-USA LOCAL 119 HEALTH &
WELFARE FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

:
:

vs.

:

AIR COMFORT CO., INC. and
STANLEY SMALL, individually,

:

Defendants.

CA 10-0119-KD-C

:
ORDER

Plaintiffs have moved the Court for an order requiring defendants to show cause
as to why they should not be held in contempt of Court for their failure to respond to this
Court’s July 1, 2011 Order (Doc. 77). (Doc. 78.) That order granted plaintiffs’ motion to
compel defendants to respond, and produce documents responsive to, plaintiffs’
Requests for Production of Documents at Deposition and Aid of Execution of Judgment
propounded and served on Defendant Stanley Small on April 6, 2011 pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 30(b)(2), and 34, or provide this Court with a written explanation for defendants’
failure to do so, no later than July 12, 2011. (Doc. 77 at 2.) The July 1, 2011 Order
further provided plaintiffs the opportunity to file a motion, pursuant to Rule 37(a)(5)(A),
for attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing the motion to compel.
In light of defendants’ noncompliance with this Court’s July 1, 2011 Order,
plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED, and the following is ORDERED: counsel for plaintiffs;
defendants’ counsel, Messrs. Elias J. Saad and Russell S. Terry; Mr. Stanley Small; and an

officer of Air Comfort Company, Inc. SHALL attend a hearing on Monday, July 25,
2011, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 3A, United States Courthouse, Mobile, Alabama, at
which defendants shall fully explain why they did not comply with the Court’s July 1,
2011 Order and why they should not be sanctioned for their failure to comply with an
order of the Court.1
DONE this the 15th day of July, 2011.
s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court’s July 1, 2011 Order provided—clearly—“that should
defendants fail to comply with [the order], they shall face the possibility of sanctions in
addition to potentially reimbursing plaintiffs for their attorneys’ fees and costs for
bringing [the] motion [to compel].” (Doc. 77 at 2-3.) See Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v.
Florida Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district
court need not tolerate defiance of reasonable orders.”); Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v.
SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1306 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A court may impose sanctions
for litigation misconduct under its inherent power.”); Martin v. Automobili Lamborghini
Exclusive, Inc., 307 F.3d 1332, 1335 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Courts have the inherent authority to
control the proceedings before them, which includes the authority to impose ‘reasonable
and appropriate’ sanctions.”).
1

2