American Registry of Radiologic Technologists v. Moultry

Filing 47

ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT against Defendant Keith Moultry. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 12/8/2023. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (maq)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

AMERICAN REGISTRY OF
RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGISTS,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01322-JAH-KSC
ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT
AGAINST DEFENDANT KEITH
MOULTRY

Plaintiff,
v.
KEITH MOULTRY,
Defendant.

16
17

On March 17, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff American Registry of Radiologic

18

Technologists Motion for an Order to Show Cause why Defendant Keith Moultry

19

(“Defendant”) should not be held in criminal and civil contempt of Court for violating the

20

Court’s August 14, 2017, [ECF No. 19], and March 17, 2021, [ECF No. 39], orders. (ECF

21

No. 41).

22

After reviewing the record and the evidence submitted, the Court finds Defendant in

23

civil contempt of the conditions set forth in the Entry of Default Judgment and the Order

24

Affirming Default Judgment, [ECF Nos. 19, 39], and imposes compensatory penalties as

25

set forth below.

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
3:16-cv-01322-JAH-KSC

1

BACKGROUND

2

The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (“Plaintiff” or “ARRT”) is a

3

national credentialing organization that has registered various marks with the United States

4

Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). (“Compl.”, ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 7, 15). Its marks

5

indicate that individuals certified and registered with ARRT are qualified to work as

6

radiologic technologists and have satisfied ARRT’s rigorous educational, testing, and other

7

certification standards. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-15). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant uses aliases and

8

forged credential cards from ARRT’s website to mislead potential employers. (Id. at ¶¶

9

31, 34, 39). Defendant failed to make an appearance in the matter. On August 14, 2017,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

the Court entered default judgment, and set forth in pertinent part:
• Plaintiff shall recover from Defendant costs in the amount of $4,500.03 and
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $20,721.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a);
• Defendant is permanently enjoined, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116, from directly
or indirectly using, reproducing, copying, or imitating the ARRT® trademarks,
service marks, certification marks, or any other mark, word, or name similar to
the ARRT® trademark, which is likely to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive;
• Defendant is ordered, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118 to deliver to ARRT all
materials in his possession, custody, or control bearing, containing or using the
ARRT® trademark, service marks, or certification marks;
• Defendant is ordered to file with the Court and serve on ARRT within thirty
(30) days after the service on Defendant of this Order, a written report, made
under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendant has
complied with this Order.
• If at any future time Defendant is found to have violated this Order, he shall be
liable for all attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in any action to enforce this
Order or otherwise remedy such violation.

26

(“Ord. Granting Entry of Default Judgment”, ECF No. 19 at 2-3). The Court entered an

27

Order Reaffirming Default Judgment on March 17, 2021, repeating the terms set forth in

28
2
3:16-cv-01322-JAH-KSC

1

the Order Granting Default Judgment. (“Ord. Reaffirming Default Judgment”, ECF No.

2

39).

3

Plaintiff now brings the instant Motion for an Order to Show Cause alleging that

4

Defendant continues to flout the Court’s orders by continuing his violative conduct.1

5

Specifically, Defendant has “not contacted counsel for ARRT, delivered ARRT

6

trademarked materials, arranged to pay attorneys’ fees, or otherwise taken any reasonable

7

steps to comply” with the Court’s prior orders. (“Memo. of P.’s & A’s”, ECF No. 40-1 at

8

2). Importantly, Defendant has sought employment through a temporary staffing agency,

9

Quality Temp Staffing (“Quality”), using the aliases Keith Miller or Kevin Miller, and

10

represented himself as being ARRT certified on his resume. (Id.; Kummer Decl. ¶¶ 8-9;

11

Ex. A, ECF No. 40-2). Defendant provided the staffing agency with the California

12

Department of Public Health’s Radiologic Health Branch license number for an individual

13

named “Kevin Daniel Miller.” (Kummer Decl. ¶ 10). Plaintiff asserts that Moultry’s

14

practice of using aliases is problematic, particularly when the name and license of a real

15

ARRT certified individual is being used to perpetuate Defendant’s fraud. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-13).

16

The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause, and Defendant

17

was directed to respond and show cause “why he should not be held in contempt of court

18

within 15 business days from the date of service.” (“Ord. Granting Plaintiff’s Mtn. for

19

Ord. to Show Cause”, ECF No. 41 at 4). Plaintiff was ordered to serve upon Defendant

20

the Order Granting the Motion for an Order to Show Cause and the attached supporting

21

exhibits, which included Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause, [ECF No. 40], the

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant was previously found in civil contempt of court for falsely representing
himself as having obtained ARRT certification to gain employment as a radiologic
technologist. (See ECF Nos. 28, 33). For a violation of the civil contempt, Defendant was
ordered, inter alia, to compensate Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$7,487.00. (ECF No. 28 at 5). Defendant was afforded an opportunity to purge himself of
the contempt order by taking necessary action, which he failed to do. (Id.) The Court also
initiated criminal contempt proceedings against Defendant in United States v. Moultry,
3:18-cr-03298-JAH, which was later dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 33).

1

3
3:16-cv-01322-JAH-KSC

1

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Default, [ECF No. 17], and the

2

Order Reaffirming Default Judgment, [ECF No. 39]. Plaintiff filed a certificate of service

3

showing Defendant was personally served the aforementioned documents on July 19, 2022.

4

(ECF No. 43). Defendant failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause or

5

otherwise comply with its orders. (See ECF Nos. 19, 39, 40).

6

DISCUSSION

7

Federal courts have both inherent and statutory authority to compel compliance with

8

their orders. 18 U.S.C. §§ 401-402; Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of America v.

9

Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831-833 (1994). Contempt may be enforced by either a civil or

10

criminal contempt proceeding. If the purpose of the relief is to coerce compliance with a

11

court order, or to compensate the petitioner for the refusal, the contempt proceeding is civil

12

in nature. Id. at 827-828; F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d

13

1128, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that civil penalties must either be compensatory or

14

designed to coerce compliance). In civil contempt proceedings, the court must find that

15

the moving party has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the violating party

16

defied a specific and definite order of the court. In re Dyer, 322 F.3d 1178, 1190–91 (9th

17

Cir. 2003) (citing In re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002)). Furthermore,

18

willfulness is not required in order to hold a party in contempt. McComb v. Jacksonville

19

Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949). When considering a coercive fine to make a

20

defendant comply with a court order, the court should consider “the character and

21

magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness

22

of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result desired.” Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair

23

Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted).

24

The Court finds Plaintiff has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant

25

violated a definite and specific order of this Court. Specifically, the Court finds Defendant

26

non-compliant with its directives as initially set forth in the Court’s Order Granting Entry

27

of Default Judgment. See supra at 2:11-26. Defendant has failed to “deliver to ARRT all

28

materials in his possession, custody, or control bearing, containing or using the ARRT®
4
3:16-cv-01322-JAH-KSC

1

trademark, service marks, or certification marks[.]” (Id.) This Court clearly warned

2

Defendant that a violation of the Court’s orders may result in him being “liable for all

3

attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in any action to enforce [the August 14, 2017] Order.”

4

(Id. at 3). As Defendant was served with the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Order

5

to Show Cause on July 19, 2022, the Court finds Defendant had adequate notice supporting

6

a finding of civil contempt.2

7

Furthermore, Defendant is in violation of the Court’s directive enjoining him “from

8

directly or indirectly using, reproducing, copying, or imitating the ARRT® trademarks,

9

service marks, certification marks, or any other mark, word, or name similar to the ARRT®

10

trademark, which is likely to cause confusion, mistake or to deceive[.]” (Ord. Granting

11

Entry of Default Judgment at 2). Defendant’s continued and repeated representation on his

12

resume that he is ARRT certified and credentialed to gain and maintain employment is a

13

far-reaching misrepresentation—he defrauds the named license holder and compromises

14

his reputation, undermines the reputation and credibility of ARRT, and most importantly,

15

he causes harm to patients and those seeking radiologic services. The Court recognizes

16

that standing alone, this single incident may not rise to “clear and convincing” evidence

17

that Defendant violated the injunctive provision of the Court’s order; however, the instant

18

facts evince a pattern of behavior of Defendant misrepresenting ARRT certification in

19

order to gain and secure employment. As Defendant continues to violate ARRT’s marks,

20

he causes significant potential liability to Plaintiff and its end-user customer while

21

exposing patients to significant health and safety risks.

22

///

23
24
25
26
27
28

Separately, on September 22, 2020, Defendant was served with pertinent documents,
including the original complaint, (ECF No. 1), and the Order Granting Plaintiff’s
Unopposed Motion for Entry of Default, (ECF No. 17). (ECF No. 37). The Court
confirmed service was perfected. (See “Minute Entry, Oct. 13, 2020”, ECF No. 38).

2

5
3:16-cv-01322-JAH-KSC

1

The Court acknowledges Defendant’s history of noncompliance with the Court’s

2

injunctive directives and the contempt sanctions. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the

3

magnitude of the harm is so great, such that a sanction is warranted under the instant facts.

4

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

5

The Court finds Defendant in violation of this Court’s Order and Entry of Default

6

Judgment, and further finds that Defendant has not taken reasonable steps necessary to

7

comply with the Court’s specific and definite mandates. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

8

ORDERED:

9

1.

The American Registry of Radiologic Technologists’ Motion for an Order of

10

Civil Contempt against Defendant Keith Moultry is GRANTED.

11

2.

12

fees in the amount of $9,937.50 incurred in bringing the Motion for Order to Show

13

Cause. (See “Supp. Memo. in Support of Plaintiff ARRT’s Mot. for Ord. to Show

14

Cause”, ECF No. 46).

15

3.

16

following actions within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this Order:

17

Defendant Keith Moultry shall compensate Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’

Keith Moultry may purge himself of this contempt Order by taking the
a. Contacting Lynnda McGlinn of DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP by email at

18

[e-mail] or phone at [phone], and

19

b. Delivering all materials in his possession, custody, or control bearing,

20

containing or using the ARRT® trademark, service marks, or certification

21

marks to Plaintiff’s attorneys of record, DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, 600

22

Anton Blvd. Suite 200, Costa Mesa CA 92626-7655, and

23

c. Paying or making agreed upon arrangements to pay attorney’s fees and costs

24

imposed in the original Order, dated August 14, 2017, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

25

§ 1117(a).

26

4.

27

August 14, 2017, Order within twenty-one (21) days of receipt this Order of Civil

28

Contempt shall subject him to:

Defendant’s failure to take reasonable steps to fully comply with this Court’s

6
3:16-cv-01322-JAH-KSC

1

a. Additional sanctions and enforcement by either civil or criminal contempt

2

proceedings; and

3

b. Further liability for attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in enforcing the

4

August 14, 2017, Order.

5

5.

6

and file proof of service within three (3) days upon doing so.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff ARRT shall serve a copy of this Order upon Defendant Moultry,

DATED: December 8, 2023
_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
3:16-cv-01322-JAH-KSC