TDC International Corporation v. Burnham

Filing 73

ORDER Holding Defendant in Contempt of Court and Issuing Bench Warrant for Defendant's Arrest, ( Contempt Hearing set for 1/8/2019 02:30 PM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland in PORT HURON, MI )(See Misc # 18-51747) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TDC INTERNATIONAL CORP.
f/k/a G.E. THOMPSON DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 08-14792

JAE L. BURNHAM, d/b/a QUICK AND
EASY MOVING, AND QUICK AND EASY
MOVING, LLC,
Defendants.
/
ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ISSUING BENCH
WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST
The court entered a consent judgment in this trademark dispute on June 22,
2009. (Dkt. #30.) Defendant Jae Burnham, doing business as Quick and Easy Moving,
repeatedly failed to abide by that consent judgment, which ultimately prompted the court
to hold him in contempt. (Dkt. #57.) On January 1, 2011, Defendant filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy, and this proceeding was stayed in accordance with the automatic stay
provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). (Dkt. #61.) The bankruptcy court
ultimately denied Defendant discharge. In re Jae Burnham, No. 11-00001 (Bankr. W.D.
Mich. Oct. 7, 2011.) Thereafter, Plaintiff successfully petitioned the court to reopen the
case and lift the stay (Dkt. #63); however, Defendant then filed a second notice of
bankruptcy (Dkt. #64) which promoted the court to reimpose the stay. (Dkt. #65.)
Plaintiff initiated an adversarial proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court to determine
the dischargeability of Defendant’s contempt sanctions in this case. The Bankruptcy
court ultimately held that the $9,178.00 in sanctions accrued by Defendant were non-

dischargeable. In re TDC Int'l Corp. v. Burnham, No. DL 17-03285, 17-80176, 2018 WL
5255297 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. July 18, 2018). Following this ruling, Plaintiff successfully
petitioned the court to lift the stay and order Defendant to show cause why he should
not be held in contempt of court for his continued failure to comply with the court’s
earlier rulings. (Dkt. #65.) A show cause hearing was held on November 7, 2018. Mere
hours before the hearing began, Defendant filed a third notice of bankruptcy and
requested that the court reimpose the automatic stay. (Dkt. #69.) The show cause
hearing persisted nevertheless, and the court cautioned Defendant that failure to tender
partial payment of the contempt fees may result in additional sanctions, specifically
incarceration. Defendant ignored the court’s warning and failed to tender any payment.
(Dkt. #72.)
The Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay does not automatically halt all judicial
proceedings against a defendant. See Dominic's Rest. of Dayton, Inc. v. Mantia, 683
F.3d 757, 760 (6th Cir. 2012). The district court of a pending proceeding determines
whether the proceeding is subject to the automatic stay. NLRB v. Edward Cooper
Painting, Inc., 804 F.2d 934, 939 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting In re Baldwin-United Corp.
Litig., 765 F.2d 343, 347 (2d Cir. 1985)) (“The court in which the litigation claimed to be
stayed is pending has jurisdiction to determine not only its own jurisdiction but also the
more precise question whether the proceeding pending before it is subject to the
automatic stay.”). “Courts have . . . the inherent authority to enforce their judicial orders
and decrees in cases of civil contempt.” Liberis v. Craig, 845 F.2d 326 (6th Cir. 1988).
The court has reviewed the applicable case law and determines that it has jurisdiction
over the instant matter.

2

The law in the Sixth Circuit is clear that defendants cannot escape civil sanction
penalties simply by filing for bankruptcy because “[w]ere a debtor permitted to ‘blatantly
violate direct orders of the court and then seek shelter from a bankruptcy judge,’ then
the power to sanction ‘could be rendered almost meaningless.’” Leonard v. RDLG, LLC,
644 F. App’x 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Dominic's, 683 F.3d at 761). In this case,
Defendant cannot hide behind a new petition of bankruptcy to avoid his nondischargeable contempt sanctions. The court has offered Defendant ample
opportunities to comply with the court’s ruling, but Defendant has skirted his obligations
for years. At this point, the court is left with no other option to coerce Defendant’s
compliance apart from incarceration. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant, Jae L. Burnham, stands in civil contempt of
court for his willful and continued failure to fully comply with this court’s previous
contempt order November 19, 2010 (Dkt. # 57) issued for violating the injunction
imposed by this court on May 3, 2010. (Dkt. # 40.) As a result, Defendant is DIRECTED
to pay Plaintiff TDC International Corporation the balance of his accrued civil sanction
penalties, $9,178.00.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Bench Warrant shall issue for the arrest of
Defendant, Jae L. Burnham, by the United States Marshal to be brought before this
court and to remain in custody until he fully complies with this court’s Order dated
November 19, 2010. Should Defendant not comply on his own volition, Defendant will
remain in custody until January 8, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. at which time he will appear

3

at a hearing before the court in Port Huron, Michigan and explain the status of his
compliance.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 12, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, December 12, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]
S:\Cleland\Cleland\HEB\Civil\08-14792.TDC.contempt.order.arrest.warrant.HEB.docx

4