Lake Burton Civic Association, Inc. v. Williams et al
Filing
120
ORDER granting 76 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Contempt Order; granting 81 Motion for Reconsdieration re the Court's Contempt Order; granting 118 Motion to Dismiss this Action after a Reasonable Time for Additional Partie s to Intervene. The sanctions previously imposed against Defendants are VACATED. Plaintiff's former counsel, Andrews, Knowles & Princenthal, LLC and Stack & Associates are SUBSTITUTED as Plaintiffs in this action. The Court VACATES its Order of March 15, 2010 72 , issuing ajudgment against all Defendants for $179,542.50. Lake Burton Civic Association, Inc.; J. T. Williams; Bert Williams; Lake Burton Development,LLC; and Waterfall Country Club, LLC are DISMISSED as parties to this a ction. The Court DIRECTS the undischarged Defendants (David Williams and Killearn, Inc.) to confer with Plaintiffs former counsel on the issue ofattorneys fees. Within 14 days of this Order, the remaining Parties shall submit a status report to the Court. If the Parties have not settled the remaining claim, the Parties shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court. If the Parties cannot agree on the schedule, each Party shall submit its proposed schedule, and the Court will set the schedule. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 09/23/11. (sk) Modified on 9/26/2011 (sk).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
LAKE BURTON CIVIC
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
J.T. WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:06-CV-189-RWS
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Contempt Order [76], Defendants David
Williams and Killearn, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
Contempt Order [81], and Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss this Action after a
Reasonable Time for Additional Parties to Intervene [118]. After a review of
the record, and numerous hearings on the matter, the Court enters the following
order.
I. Brief Background
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants for their construction of the
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Waterfall Country Club and its alleged violation of the Clean Water Act and
related state laws. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and this
Court ordered Defendants to comply with that agreement on April 9, 2009. See
Dkt. No. [23].
In May 2009, the Plaintiffs moved to have the Defendants held in
contempt for their failure to comply with the Court’s April Order and the
underlying settlement agreement. See Dkt. No. [24]. That motion was denied.
See Dkt. No. [40]. However, Plaintiff’s September Amended Motion to
Compel Compliance was granted, in part. The Court ordered all of the
Defendants to uphold the settlement agreement and to deposit a bond of
$198,334.00 in the Registry of the Court within ten (10) days of the November
19, 2010 Order. Dkt. No. [56].
Defendants failed to post the bond, and on December 9, 2009, the Court
entered an Order [60] granting Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to
Post Bond [57]. In that Order, the Court required Defendants to provide weekly
updates of Defendant Waterfall Country Club, LLC’s income from 2010
membership dues and general revenue. Dkt No. [57]. The Court held that the
full payment of $198,334 would be due on January 15, 2010 in the event that
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Waterfall Country Club, LLC had received at least $500,000 in 2010
membership dues and club revenue by that time. If it had not received at least
$500,000, Defendants were required to pay one-third (1/3) of the total 2010
membership dues that had been received. In any event, the Court held that the
balance of the $198,334 would be due on February 15, 2010.
Defendants failed to meet the February 15th deadline and, in fact, only
paid $18,791.50 into the Registry of the Court on January 19, 2010. This Court
held a hearing requiring Defendants to show cause why they should not be held
in contempt. Following the hearing, this Court found that Defendants were in
“wilful contempt of the Court Orders” and ordered that they pay the balance
due of $179,542.50 into the Court Registry, with an additional $10,000
accruing each week commencing Friday, March 19, 2010 until the funds were
paid. Dkt. No. [72]. No additional funds have been deposited.
Defendants jointly filed a Motion for Reconsideration [76] challenging
the Court’s debt calculations and providing additional evidence which
Defendants claim was not available to them at the time of the hearing.
Defendants Williams and Killearn additionally challenged their ability to pay
the judgment or its associated weekly fine, that the contempt order is
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
excessively penal, and that these Defendants were not aware of the letter upon
which the Court partially based its contempt judgment. Dkt. No. [81].
Defendants Williams and Killearn requested a hearing to discuss these matters.
Id. In response, the Court ordered a contempt hearing. Dkt. No. [93].
At the hearing, Plaintiff’s former counsel (Stack & Associates and
Andrew, Knowles, and Princenthal) appeared and stated that their status as
Plaintiff’s agent was in question, and that they did not feel comfortable
representing Plaintiff under those circumstances. The Court continued the
hearing until the Plaintiff, a Georgia corporation, could find substitute counsel.
After the parties conferred about the matter, the Court held two contempt
hearings wherein it took evidence and heard argument on whether the contempt
order remained proper since the Plaintiff no longer wished to pursue any claims
against the Defendants and a majority of the Defendants had declared–and were
discharged in–bankruptcy.
Ultimately, it is worth noting, the only claim which is still being pursued
in this matter is the attorney’s fees claim by Plaintiff’s former counsel. Under
the settlement agreement, the parties voluntarily agreed that $108,000 would be
paid to the Plaintiff’s attorneys following the agreement’s signing, and
4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
additional, reasonable fees would be paid if certain conditions were met. Dkt.
No. [20-1] at 6-7.
II. Discussion
A. Prior Judgment
As Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue any claims against Defendants,
the Court VACATES its Order of March 15, 2010 [72], issuing a judgment
against all Defendants for $179,542.50. That judgment was for money to fund
work to abate negative impacts on Lake Burton. The Defendants no longer own
the Waterfall Country Club, and it is unclear whether they would have the legal
authority to make any alterations to land that they no longer own.
B. Motions for Reconsideration
Following the hearings, the Court finds that reconsideration is proper in
this case. Under the Local Rules of this Court, “[m]otions for reconsideration
shall not be filed as a matter of routine practice[,]” but rather, only when
“absolutely necessary.” LR 7.2(E), NDGa. Such absolute necessity arises where
there is “(1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or
change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact.”
Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258-59 (N.D. Ga. 2003). However , a
5
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
motion for reconsideration may not be used “to present the court with
arguments already heard and dismissed or to repackage familiar arguments to
test whether the court will change its mind.” Id. at 1259. Furthermore, “[a]
motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity for the moving party . . . to
instruct the court on how the court ‘could have done it better’ the first time.”
Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb’s History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
916 F. Supp. 1557, 1560 (N.D. Ga. 1995 ), aff’d, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996).
Here, all Defendants but David Williams and Killearn, Inc. have filed
bankruptcy, and many have already been discharged of this debt. See Dkt. Nos.
[41, 74, 83, 92, 98, 99]. The Court finds that this evidence cuts in favor of
removing the contempt sanctions as most Defendants no longer have the funds
to pay the sanction, and even if they did, the underlying debt was discharged in
bankruptcy. See In re Lawrence, 279 F.3d 1294, 1300 (11th Cir. 2002) (“When
civil contempt sanctions lose their coercive effect, they become punitive and
violate the contemnor’s due process rights.”). As well, because this Court has
vacated the judgment upon which this contempt lies, see supra, the Court’s
purpose in issuing the contempt–namely coercing payment–is no longer
appropriate as there is no underlying judgment to be paid. Therefore,
6
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Defendants’ Motions for Reconsideration [76, 81] are GRANTED. The
sanctions previously imposed against Defendants are VACATED.
C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff requests this Court to dismiss it as a party and to provide its
former counsel time to intervene, as attorney’s fees are the only issue left before
the Court. Plaintiff also states that it is willing to assign any claim to attorney’s
fees that it has. After a hearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss [118] and APPROVES Plaintiff’s request to assign its claims for
attorney’s fees pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to Plaintiff’s former
counsel. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s former counsel, Andrews,
Knowles & Princenthal, LLC and Stack & Associates be SUBSTITUTED as
Plaintiffs in this action.1
D. Remaining Matters
The Court DIRECTS the undischarged Defendants (David Williams and
Killearn, Inc.) to confer with Plaintiff’s former counsel on the issue of
attorney’s fees. Within 14 days of this Order, the remaining Parties shall
1
The Court does not make any findings as to whether LBCA owes their former
counsel attorney’s fees due to services rendered in this matter.
7
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
submit a status report to the Court. If the Parties have not settled the remaining
claim, the Parties shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court. If the
Parties cannot agree on the schedule, each Party shall submit its proposed
schedule, and the Court will set the schedule.
III. Conclusion
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Contempt Order
[76], Defendants David Williams and Killearn, Inc.’s Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Contempt Order [81], and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss this Action after a Reasonable Time for Additional Parties to Intervene
[118] are GRANTED. The sanctions previously imposed against Defendants
are VACATED. Plaintiff’s former counsel, Andrews, Knowles & Princenthal,
LLC and Stack & Associates are hereby SUBSTITUTED as Plaintiffs in this
action.
The Court VACATES its Order of March 15, 2010 [72], issuing a
judgment against all Defendants for $179,542.50. Lake Burton Civic
Association, Inc.; J. T. Williams; Bert Williams; Lake Burton Development,
LLC; and Waterfall Country Club, LLC are DISMISSED as parties to this
action.
8
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
The Court DIRECTS the undischarged Defendants (David Williams and
Killearn, Inc.) to confer with Plaintiff’s former counsel on the issue of
attorney’s fees. Within 14 days of this Order, the remaining Parties shall
submit a status report to the Court. If the Parties have not settled the remaining
claim, the Parties shall submit a proposed scheduling order to the Court. If the
Parties cannot agree on the schedule, each Party shall submit its proposed
schedule, and the Court will set the schedule.
SO ORDERED this 23rd
day of September, 2011.
_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
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?