Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Robert Morgan Enterprises
Filing
40
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re. Criminal Contempt Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 3/5/2012 09:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 2/24/2012.. Signed by Judge James Ware on February 9, 2012. (jwlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2012)
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 TO SHOW CAUSE RE.
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
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.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Status Report on or before November
19
14, 2011 “to inform the Court as to Defendant’s compliance and whether any further action is
20
necessary.” (Id. at 6.) Pursuant to the Court’s October 26 Order, Plaintiff filed a Status Report on
21
November 14, 2011. (Docket Item No. 33.) In its Status Report, Plaintiff contended that as of
22
November 10, 2011, Defendant had only paid $1,000 to Rena Flores (“Flores”), rather than the
23
$15,000 required by the Court’s October 26 Order. (Id. at 2.)
24
In light of Defendant’s partial compliance with the Court’s October 26 Order, and in light of
25
Defendant’s contentions in response to Plaintiff’s Status Report, the Court “[did] not find good
26
cause to set an Order to Show Cause re. Criminal Contempt.” (Order re. Status Report at 2,
27
hereafter, “December 14 Order,” Docket Item No. 37.) Instead, the Court ordered Defendant to
28
1
“fully comply” with the Court’s October 26 Order by January 30, 2012, and admonished Defendant
2
that “failure to fully comply with its October 26 Order by January 30, 2012 may result in Defendant
3
being subject to criminal contempt.” (Id.)
4
On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Status Report in which it contends that Defendant has
5
not fully complied with the Court’s October 26 Order. (hereafter, “February 2 Report,” Docket Item
6
No. 39.) In particular, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has only paid $3,500 to Flores, rather than
7
the $15,000 payment required by the October 26 Order. (Id. at 2; see also October 26 Order at 5-6.)
8
Further, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not paid it $6,600 in attorney fees, even though it was
9
ordered to do so by this Court “[o]n or before January 30, 2012.”1
In light of Plaintiff’s report regarding Defendant’s continuing failure to comply with the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Court’s October 26 Order, as well as Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s Fee Order, the
12
Court finds good cause to set an Order to Show Cause Hearing re. Criminal Contempt. Accordingly,
13
on March 5, 2012 at 9 a.m., Defendant shall appear to show cause, if any, by actual appearance in
14
Court and by certification filed with the Court on or before February 24, 2012, why it should not be
15
held in criminal contempt.
16
17
Dated: February 9, 2012
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
27
(February 2 Report at 2-3; see also Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees at
4, hereafter, “Fee Order,” Docket Item No. 38.)
28
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: February 9, 2012
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?