Melikhov et al v. Drab et al

Filing 157

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's remaining recommendations (148) regarding Judgment Creditors' motion for civil contempt (114) are ADOPTED IN PART, and the motion is GRANTED. See Order for details. Signed by Judge John L. Badalamenti on 3/8/2021. (VK)

Case 2:19-cv-00248-JLB-MRM Document 157 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 2193

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ANTHONY MELIKHOV an
individual; MELMAR HOLDINGS,
LLC, an Illinois limited liability
company; and U4G GROUP, LLC, an
Illinois limited liability company,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:19-cv-248-JLB-MRM

LADISLAV DRAB, an individual; CE
GROUP, a foreign entity; ČESKÁ ENERGIE
A.S., a foreign entity, and ČESKÁ
PLYNÁRENSKÁ A.S., a foreign entity,
Defendants.

/
ORDER

On March 4, 2021, this Court held a show-cause hearing to determine
whether Judgment Creditors’ motion to hold Defendant Ladislav Drab in contempt
should be granted. (Docs. 99, 114, 153.) In advance of the hearing, the Court
partially adopted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate
Judge on January 19, 2021, recommending that Mr. Drab be held in civil contempt
for violating this Court’s omnibus postjudgment discovery order and certifying facts
in support of contempt. (Docs. 148–49.) The R&R was partially adopted to the
extent that the Court accepted the Magistrate Judge’s certified facts but deferred
ruling on the merits of Judgment Creditors’ motion. (Doc. 149.)
A district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s R&R. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The factual findings in the R&R need not be reviewed de novo in

Case 2:19-cv-00248-JLB-MRM Document 157 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2194

the absence of an objection, but legal conclusions are always reviewed de novo. Id.;
Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Garvey v.
Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).
After having the benefit of a hearing where both parties presented argument
in lieu of written objections, it is ORDERED:
1.

The remainder of the R&R (Doc. 148) is ADOPTED IN PART, and
Judgment Creditors’ motion for contempt is GRANTED (Doc. 114).

2.

Mr. Drab is found in civil contempt of court for failing to comply
with this Court’s omnibus postjudgment discovery order (Doc. 99).

3.

Mr. Drab may purge himself of the contempt by complying with:
(1) the Motion to Compel Defendant/Judgment Debtor Ladislav Drab
to Respond to Requests for Production in Aid of Execution and
Interrogatories in Aid of Execution and for Sanctions (Doc. 79-1); and,
(2) the Consented to Motion to Require Defendant/Judgment Debtor
Ladislav Drab to Complete Fla. R. Civ. P. Form 1.977 (Fact
Information Sheet) (Doc. 81-1).

4.

A fine of $250 per day shall be assessed against Mr. Drab to ensure
compliance.

5.

Mr. Drab is also taxed with Judgment Creditors’ reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs, to be determined and set forth by separate
order, associated with the: (1) subject Motion for Contempt and
Sanctions; (2) November 12, 2020 Notice of Noncompliance;

2

Case 2:19-cv-00248-JLB-MRM Document 157 Filed 03/08/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 2195

(3) November 16, 2020 show cause hearing; December 4, 2020 Notice of
Noncompliance; and, (5) December 7, 2020 show cause hearing.
6.

At the contempt hearing, Mr. Drab represented that he may be able to
secure funds for a potential settlement of the underlying judgment.
Assuming he could, the parties represented that they would attempt to
reach an amicable resolution of this matter no later than March 12,
2021. If the parties can resolve this matter by that date, then Mr.
Drab’s contempt will be purged, and no fines will be collected. The
parties may jointly request a reasonable extension of the deadline if
negotiations require more time. Any opposed motion for an extension
will be denied.

7.

At present, the Court declines to issue a bench warrant for Mr. Drab’s
arrest. However, the Court reserves the right to issue a bench
warrant to ensure Mr. Drab’s compliance with this Order.

8.

Finally, the Court notes that the parties were previously noticed that
the Court will be conducting a hearing via ZOOM video
conference on March 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. to ensure compliance
with this Order (Doc. 156).

ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on March 8, 2021.

3