Rosier v. Civista Medical Center Inc. et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Directing Plaintiff's counsel to satisfy the monetary sanctions or show cause within 14 days. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 2/19/2019. (km4s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BRENDA L. ROSIER,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

CIVISTA MEDICAL CENTER, INC.
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 8:17-cv-2826-PX

*

*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On January 9, 2019, this Court ordered counsel for Plaintiff to pay $1,898.50 in sanctions
for “repeated failures to adhere to Court orders” and “failure to conclude this matter consistent
with the terms of the settlement agreement.” ECF No. 30 at 1. The Court required Plaintiff’s
counsel to pay the sanctions by February 8, 2019. Id. On February 11, 2019, Defendant’s
counsel notified the Court that no payment has been made. ECF No. 31.
The failure of Plaintiff’s counsel to comply with the Court’s Order is part of a consistent
and “historic lack of diligence.” ECF No. 28 at 1. Previously, “Plaintiff’s counsel [was]
forewarned that the Court [was] considering sanctioning counsel, to include possible contempt.”
ECF No. 20 at 1. Counsel’s continued refusal to comply with this Court’s Order will leave the
Court no choice but to hold counsel in contempt.
The Court “may impose sanctions for civil contempt ‘to coerce obedience to a court
order.’” In re Gen. Motors Corp., 61 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting Connolly v. J.T.
Ventures, 851 F.2d 930, 932 (7th Cir. 1988)). Where fines are futile in achieving compliance,
“the Court must consider a more severe sanction.” Enovative Techs., LLC v. Leor, 110 F. Supp.
3d 633, 637 (D. Md. 2015). Indeed, “[t]he paradigmatic coercive, civil contempt sanction . . .
involves confining a contemnor indefinitely until he complies with an affirmative command.”

Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994). The Court may
“order that a warrant be issued for [the contemnor’s] immediate arrest and that he be held in jail
as a coercive sanction for civil contempt, unless and until he purges himself of contempt and
complies with” the Court’s Order. Enovative Techs., 110 F. Supp. 3d at 637.
Plaintiff’s counsel will receive no further warning. Plaintiff’s counsel must satisfy the
previously-imposed monetary sanction immediately. Failure to do so absent a showing of good
cause will result in this Court’s holding counsel in contempt and taking all necessary steps to
secure counsel’s personal appearance, to include issuing an arrest warrant and detaining counsel
until the prior Order is satisfied.
Accordingly, it is this 19th day of February 2019, by the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, ORDERED that within 14 days of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order, Plaintiff’s counsel must either satisfy the monetary sanction consistent with this Court’s
prior order dated January 9, 2019 (ECF No. 30), or show good cause why counsel should not be
held in contempt for failure to comply.

2-19-2019____________________
Date

____/S/_______________________
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge

2