Methven & Associates Professional Corporation v. Paradies-Stroud et al

Filing 149

ORDER HOLDING MR. W. CHARLES ROBINSON IN CONTEMPT. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 9/23/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

METHVEN AND ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

No. C 13-01079 JSW

10

ORDER HOLDING MR.
ROBINSON IN CONTEMPT

11
v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
12
13

SCARLETT PARADIES-STROUD, as
administrator of the ESTATE OF ANDREW
B. STROUD, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
/
16
17
18

On July 21, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to W. Charles Robinson,

19

former counsel for Interpleader Scarlett Paradies-Stroud as the administrator of the Estate of

20

Andrew B. Stroud (“Ms. Stroud”), Andy Stroud, Inc. (“ASI”), and Stroud Productions and

21

Enterprises, Inc. (“SPE”) (collectively referred to as the “Stroud Defendants”). The Court

22

admonished Mr. Robinson that if he did not to pay the $5,000 by July 31, 2014, he would be

23

held in contempt of Court. The Court further ordered Mr. Robinson to show cause by July 31,

24

2014 why he should not be sanctioned an additional $3,000 for the further misconduct described

25

and why this Court should not refer this matter to the New York Bar Association for

26

disciplinary action. Mr. Robinson failed to respond. Therefore, the Court found that

27

sanctioning Mr. Robinson an additional $3,000 and reporting him to the New York Bar

28

1

Association was warranted. The Court ordered Mr. Robinson to pay $3,000 to the Court by no

2

later than August 22, 2014.

3

Moreover, the Court ordered Mr. Robinson to show cause (“OSC”) why he should not

4

be held in civil contempt for his failure to pay the $5,000 in sanctions required by the Court’s

5

earlier orders. The Court further ordered that if Mr. Robinson failed to pay the additional

6

$3,000 sanction by August 22, 2014, the Court’s OSC regarding civil contempt would include

7

the additional $3,000. Mr. Robinson was ordered to file a written response no later August 29,

8

2014 and was ordered to appear at a hearing on Friday, September 5, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. Mr.

9

Robinson did neither.
If a party disobeys a “specific and definite court order” by failing to “take all reasonable

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

steps within the party’s power to comply” with that order, it may be held in contempt.

12

Go–Video v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am. ( In re Dual Deck ), 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993).

13

“There is no good faith exception to the requirement of compliance with a court order.” Id. If,

14

however, a party’s actions are based on a “good faith and reasonable interpretation” of the

15

order, it will not be held in contempt of the order. Id. Similarly, a party should not be held in

16

contempt based on “a few technical violations where every reasonable effort has been made to

17

comply.” Id. “Congress has determined that the power to hold a party in contempt is a

18

discretionary power vested in the court whose order has been violated.” Crystal Palace v. Mark

19

Twain, 817 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1987).

20

The Court finds that Mr. Robinson has repeatedly violated this Court’s orders and has

21

not shown any good cause for doing so, including his failure to pay the monetary sanctions this

22

Court imposed in an attempt to obtain Mr. Robinson’s compliance with its orders. The Court

23

finds that Mr. Robinson should be held in contempt.

24

The Court now turns to the appropriate remedy. “Civil contempt is characterized by the

25

court’s desire to compel obedience to a court order ... or to compensate the contemnor’s

26

adversaries for the injuries which result from the non-compliance.” Falstaff Brewing Corp. v.

27

Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). While the Court

28

should consider the least coercive sanction designed to achieve the goal of compliance with the
2

1

Court’s orders, the appropriate sanction is a matter within the Court’s discretion. See United

2

States v. Flores, 628 F.2d 521, 527 (9th Cir. 1980). The Court finds that imposing a fine of

3

$400 per day until Mr. Robinson pays the sanctions in the amount of $8,000 is warranted and is

4

designed to compel compliance with this Court’s Orders.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: September 23, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3