Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Robert Morgan Enterprises

Filing 37

ORDER re 33 Status Report filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge James Ware on December 14, 2011. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION NO. C 10-04757 JW Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, 11 ORDER RE. STATUS REPORT Plaintiff, v. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Robert Morgan Enters., 13 Defendant. 14 / 15 On October 26, 2011, the Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Civil 16 Contempt of Consent Decree. (hereafter, “October 26 Order,” Docket Item No. 31.) In its October 17 26 Order, the Court found that Defendant was in civil contempt, and imposed certain sanctions on 18 Defendant. (Id. at 5-6.) In particular, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay $15,000.00 to Rena Flores 19 (“Flores”) on or before November 9, 2011. (Id. at 6.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file a 20 Status Report on or before November 14, 2011 “to inform the Court as to Defendant’s compliance 21 and whether any further action is necessary.” (Id.) 22 Pursuant to the Court’s October 26 Order, Plaintiff filed a Status Report on November 14, 23 2011. (Docket Item No. 33.) In its Status Report, Plaintiff contends that as of November 10, 2011, 24 Defendant had only paid $1,000 to Flores, rather than the $15,000 required by the Court’s October 25 26 Order. (Id. at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff contends that “[i]n light of Defendant’s continuing 26 disregard of [the] Court’s orders,” the Court should “consider a finding of criminal contempt against 27 Defendant.” (Id.) In particular, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an Order to Show Cause to 28 1 Defendant to notify it that it “may be found to be in criminal contempt for its intentional violation of 2 [the] Court’s orders.” (Id. at 3.) In response, Defendant has filed a Report contending that, in 3 addition to its initial payment of $1,000 to Flores, it has made two additional payments to Flores of 4 $500 each.1 Further, Defendant contends that it is “making payments whenever it can” and “plans to 5 pay [Flores] at least $1,000.00 per month.” (Id. at 2.) Finally, Defendant contends that it is “doing 6 its best to meet its obligations and will continue to do so.” (Id.) 7 In light of Defendant’s partial compliance with the Court’s October 26 Order, and in light of 8 Defendant’s contentions that it is “doing its best” to comply with the Court’s October 26 Order, the 9 Court does not find good cause to set an Order to Show Cause re. Criminal Contempt at this time. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Instead, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) On or before January 30, 2012, Defendant shall fully comply with the Court’s 12 October 26 Order. The Court admonishes Defendant that failure to fully comply 13 with its October 26 Order by January 30, 2012 may result in Defendant being subject 14 to criminal contempt. 15 (2) 16 On or before February 6, 2012, Plaintiff shall file a Status Report to inform the Court as to Defendant’s compliance and whether any further action is necessary. 17 18 19 Dated: December 14, 2011 JAMES WARE United States District Chief Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 (See Morgan Enterprises’ Report to the Court in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees at 1-2, Docket Item No. 34.) 2 1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: 2 Cindy O’Hara cindy.ohara@eeoc.gov David F. Offen-Brown David.Offen-Brown@eeoc.gov Jonathan T. Peck Jonathan.Peck@eeoc.gov Raymond T. Cheung raymond.cheung@eeoc.gov Steven Allan Clair steveclair57@yahoo.com William Robert Tamayo william.tamayo@eeoc.gov 3 4 5 6 Dated: December 14, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 7 By: 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 /s/ JW Chambers Susan Imbriani Courtroom Deputy

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?