Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Compton's, LLC et al
Filing
108
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for an Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 99 ], is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Comptons LLC and Richard Compton shall, within fourteen (14) da ys of the date of this Order, show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt of court violating the Consent Judgment entered by this Court on September 13, 2018. (Show Cause Response due by 7/24/2020.) Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 7/10/20. (EAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPTON’S LLC, et al.,
Defendants,
Case No. 2:16CV30 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show
Cause, [Doc. No. 99]. Defendants oppose the Motion. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion is granted.
Background
On August 21, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiff Spectrum Brands, Inc.
(“Spectrum”) summary judgment as to the liability of Defendants Compton’s LLC
(“CLLC”) and Richard Compton (“Compton”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for
breach of contract. Defendants were held to have breached their agreements to
perform, fulfill, indemnify Spectrum for all environmental remediation relating to
hazardous trichloroethylene (“TCE”) contamination at the real property located at
708 S. Missouri St, Macon, MO 63552 (“Property”).
−1−
Following the August 21 Order, the parties presented to the Court a jointly
executed Consent Decree and Judgment which included monetary and nonmonetary relief for Spectrum. The Court entered the executed document as a
Consent Judgment on the record on September 13, 2018. Therein, the Court
retained jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Judgment.
Discussion
Spectrum now moves for an Order requiring Defendants to show cause as to
why they should not be held in contempt of Court for violating the Consent
Judgment. Spectrum states that Defendants have violated Paragraph 9 of the
Consent Judgment, which requires Defendants to cease operations on the Property
by June 1, 2019, unless Spectrum provided an extension of time. Spectrum did
agree to provide several extensions to this deadline, but ultimately informed
Defendants that no further extension past January 22, 2020 would be offered.
Pursuant to the Consent Judgment, then, Defendants were required to cease
operations by January 22, 2020. Defendants admit that they have continued
operations on the Property beyond January 22, 2020 but argue that they are unable
to cease operations in compliance with the Consent Judgment.
A party seeking contempt sanctions bears the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence facts warranting a civil contempt order. Chi. Truck Drivers
v. Bhd. Labor Leasing, 207 F.3d 500, 504 (8th Cir. 2000). An overarching goal of
−2−
a court's contempt power is “to ensure that litigants do not anoint themselves with
the power to adjudge the validity of orders to which they are subject.” Id. Civil
contempt may be used to coerce a party to comply with a court order, to
compensate the alleged contemnor's opponent for losses sustained, or both. Id. at
505. “[A] mere ‘present inability to comply’ is a defense to civil contempt,” so
long as the inability to comply is not self-induced and the party has in good faith
made all reasonable efforts to comply. Id. at 506 (quoting United States v.
Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983)).
In their memorandum in opposition to the instant motion, Defendants state
that they are unable to cease operations. Defendants state that they are a large
employer in a small rural town, that Compton has been unable to find a suitable
location to move his business (CLLC), and that the Property currently has about 50
semi-trailer loads of inventory which they cannot immediately dispose of or sell.
Defendants claim that they could not pare down inventory because the
nature of their business requires that they accept “a full truckload [of inventory] at
a time or nothing at all.” Defendants further argue that they have merely
continued operating the business with the consent of Spectrum, stating “Plaintiff
cannot now profess surprise that there is inventory in the building.” Defendants
claim that they are trying to find a way to dispose of the remaining inventory now
that they are no longer permitted to operate, and report that the local dump will not
−3−
accept the inventory. Having filed their opposition in February of this year,
Defendants posited that ceasing operations would result in the Property’s pipes
freezing and damage to the inventory in which Spectrum has a security interest.
Defendants also suggest that to require Compton to show that he has been
searching for a location to move CLLC is pointless, as he is a lifelong resident of
the area, he knows what properties are in the area, has investigated the few
properties in the area that would work for his business, and has been unable to
locate anything suitable.
Defendants contend that they “have no good options” and have continued
with Spectrum to seek a mutually agreeable plan for disposition of the inventory.
Defendants suggest that a contempt order would be inappropriate under the
circumstances because they “have not shown disregard or contempt for the Court.”
Spectrum has met their burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence
that Defendants are operating their business on the Property in violation of the
Consent Judgment. At this point, Defendants have failed to show that their
purported inability to comply is not self-induced or that they have in good faith
made all reasonable efforts to comply. Outside of assertions that Compton has
inquired to no avail about appropriate properties for relocation, Defendants have
offered no evidence of actions taken to vacate the Property since entry of the
Consent Judgment. Additionally, Defendants’ problem of having excessive
−4−
inventory seems self-induced given that Defendants continued to acquire
“truckloads” of inventory notwithstanding Defendants’ obligation to vacate the
Property.
Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to show cause as to why they should
not be held in contempt of Court for violating the Consent Judgment entered on
September 13, 2018.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show
Cause [Doc. No. 99], is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Compton’s LLC and
Richard Compton shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, show
cause as to why they should not be held in contempt of court violating the Consent
Judgment entered by this Court on September 13, 2018.
Dated this 10th day of July, 2020.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
−5−
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?