TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 825 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUNDS v. J.T. CLEARY, INC.
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 4/26/18. (cm, )
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL 825 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUNDS,
Petitioners,
v.
J.T. CLEARY, INC.,
Respondent.
Civil Action No. 17-5962 (ES) (MAH)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
Background. On August 9, 2017, Petitioners Trustees of the International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 825 Employee Benefit Funds (“Petitioners”) filed a petition before this Court to
confirm two default arbitration awards against Respondent J.T. Cleary, Inc. (“Respondent”). (See
D.E. Nos. 1 & 1-3).
On September 13, 2017, upon Petitioners’ unopposed motion (D.E. No. 2), this Court entered
an Order Confirming Arbitration Award and Entry of Judgment in the amount of $16,017.37 against
Respondent. (D.E. No. 4 (“Judgment”)).1 Petitioners served the Judgment and a post-judgment
Information Subpoena on Respondent on September 18, 2017, by certified and regular mail, return
receipt requested. (D.E. No. 5-1 (“Pet. Mov. Br.”) at 3; D.E. No. 5-2 at 5-21).
“In light of Respondent’s recalcitrance,” Petitioners now move this Court to hold Respondent
and its nonparty principal, James T. Cleary, in civil contempt for failing to comply with this Court’s
Judgment and Petitioners’ Information Subpoena. (See Pet. Mov. Br. at 3). In a proposed order
1
The default arbitration awards were issued by the Hon. Joel A. Pisano (Ret.) on April 24, 2017 and May 25,
2017. (See D.E. No. 1-3).
1
submitted with their motion, Petitioners request, among other things, that if Respondent “fails . . . to
submit payment in the amount of $16,017.37, and . . . to submit to a payroll audit[,] . . . a warrant for
Mr. Cleary’s arrest shall issue out of this Court without further notice.” (D.E. No. 5-3 at 2).
Petitioners further request that Respondent and Mr. Cleary “pay the sum of $300.00 for each day”
Respondent fails to (i) submit payment in the amount of $16,017.37, and (ii) produce the documents
in the Information Subpoena, among other things. (Id.).
The Court has reviewed Petitioners’ submissions in support of their motion and decides this
matter without oral argument under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For the reasons set forth
below, the Court DENIES Petitioners’ motion without prejudice.
Legal Standard. A party seeking to have an adversary held in civil contempt must establish
by clear and convincing evidence that (i) there is a valid court order; (ii) the adversary had knowledge
of that order; and (iii) the adversary disobeyed that order. Roe v. Operation Rescue, 919 F.2d 857,
868 (3d Cir. 1990). Moreover, where civil contempt is warranted, district courts have broad
discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy, including incarceration. See Andrews v. Holloway,
256 F.R.D. 136, 148 (D.N.J. 2009) (citing Ne. Women’s Ctr., Inc. v. McMonagle, 939 F.2d 57, 70 (3d
Cir. 1991)).
At first blush, it may seem that contempt is warranted in this case: it appears that (i) there is a
valid Court order (see D.E. No. 4); (ii) Respondent is aware of it (see D.E. No. 5-2); and (iii)
Respondent has failed to comply with its terms.
However, Petitioners’ motion ignores the fact that “[a] money judgment is enforced by a writ
of execution, unless the court directs otherwise.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a). Interpreting that rule,
courts have routinely held that “[a]lternative methods of enforcement are not favored unless a writ
would be an inadequate remedy, and contempt sanctions should be imposed as an enforcement
2
method only in exceptional circumstances.” N.J. Bld’g Laborers’ Statewide Benefit Funds & the
Trustees Thereof v. Gen. Civil Corp., No. 08-6056, 2009 WL 2778313, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 1, 2009)
(citing Moore’s Federal Practice § 69.02 (3d ed. 2003)).
Analysis. To start, Petitioners have indicated that the post-judgment Information Subpoena
was served by postal mail. (D.E. No. 5-2 at 10). “Such service, however, does not comport with
what is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1), which mandates that “[s]erving a
subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person . . . .” Gen. Civil Corp., 2009 WL
2778313, at *2 (emphasis in original).2 Because Petitioners have failed to comply with the personal
service requirement of Rule 45(b)(1), the Court declines to hold Mr. Cleary (a nonparty) in contempt
for failing to submit to such discovery at this time. Cf. id. (declining to hold the respondent’s president
in contempt for failing to comply with post-judgment discovery subpoena because service of
subpoena did not comport with Rule 45(b)(1)).
As to Petitioners’ attempt to enforce the Judgment in the amount of $16,017.37, “the primary
method to enforce a money judgment is by a writ of execution.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)).
And “[a]lternative methods of enforcement are not favored unless a writ would be an inadequate
remedy.” Id. But no such inadequacy is suggested here. (See Pet. Mov. Br.). Moreover, the Court
is mindful that “contempt sanctions should be imposed as an enforcement method only in exceptional
circumstances.” Gen. Civil Corp., 2009 WL 2778313, at *2.3
2
See also Alfamodes Logistics Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Catalent Pharma Sols., LLC, No. 09-3543, 2011 WL 1542670, at
*1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2011) (“The ‘longstanding interpretation of Rule 45 has been that personal service of subpoenas is
required. The use of the word “delivering” in subdivision (b)(1) of the rule with reference to the person to be served has
been construed literally.’”) (quoting Wright & Miller, 9A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2454 (3d ed. West 2010)) (emphasis
in original); Vitale v. Repetti, No. 05-5685, 2007 WL 1752040, at *2 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (finding that party “failed to
comply with the personal service requirement of Rule 45(b)(1) by mailing the subpoenas at issue”); Parker v. John Doe
#1, No. 02-7215, 2002 WL 32107937, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2002) (“A majority of courts have held that Rule 45
requires personal service of subpoenas. . . . Rule 45 requires personal service of subpoenas and, for that reason, Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to serve subpoenas by certified mail is denied.”) (citations omitted).
3
See also Andrews, 256 F.R.D. at 141 (“The Court will not lightly hold a party in contempt . . . .”).
3
In sum, the Court finds that it would be inappropriate to impose the proposed drastic penalty
of civil contempt given the manner by which Petitioners served the Information Subpoena, the
demanding evidentiary standard, and Petitioners’ apparent failure to even attempt to enforce the
Judgment by writ of execution. Cf. id. (“[I]t is premature to conclude that Petitioner cannot follow
the primary method of enforcing its judgment, particularly given that proper service of a subpoena
upon [the respondent’s president] has not occurred to date.”).4 Petitioners therefore have not come
close to “demonstrating exceptional circumstances that would warrant imposition of civil contempt.”
Jobconnection Servs., Inc, 2016 WL 1597241, at *2 n.2. At the very least, Petitioners’ motion is
premature. As Rule 69(a) indicates, Petitioners should first seek to enforce the Judgment through a
writ of execution. Id. at *2. Accordingly, Petitioners’ motion is denied without prejudice.
Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners’ motion is denied without prejudice. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
s/ Esther Salas
Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.
4
See also Jobconnection Servs., Inc. v. Munoz, No. 13-3901, 2016 WL 1597241, at *1 (D.N.J. Apr. 21, 2016)
(“Here, [plaintiff] has not even attempted to obtain relief through a writ of execution; instead it has chosen to jump the
gun by arguing for [defendant’s] incarceration pending satisfaction of the Order and Judgment. Even if a writ of execution
were not the favored method of enforcing a judgment, [plaintiff’s] proposed solution would nonetheless be, at this point
in time, impermissibly draconian.”).
4
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?