Haskew v. Southwest Airlines Co. et al

Filing 79

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing denying 66 Motion for Contempt. (cda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
KRISANNE HASKEW,
Plaintiff,
vs.

1:19-cv-00732-JAP-LF

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. and
IAM AIR TRANSPORT DISTRICT 142,
a/k/a DISTRICT LODGE 142 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS AFL-CIO,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff Krisanne Haskew’s Motion [for]
Contempt of Court, filed July 15, 2020. Doc. 66. Ms. Haskew’s former attorneys, McKenzie
St. Dennis and Jamison Barkley, filed their response on July 21, 2020. Doc. 67. Ms. Haskew
did not file a reply and the time to do so has passed. D.N.M.LR-Civ.7.4(a) (“A reply must be
served and filed within fourteen (14) calendar days after service of the response.”).
The Court may find a party in civil contempt and impose sanctions to compensate the
contemnor's adversary for injuries resulting from the contemnor's noncompliance with a court
order. O’Connor v. Midwest Pipe Fabrications, Inc., 972 F.2d 1204, 1211 (10th Cir.1992);
Law v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 134 F.3d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1998) (“When the
primary purpose of a contempt motion is to seek compliance with a court order, the proceeding is
remedial in nature and is, therefore, a civil contempt.”); McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336
U.S. 187, 191 (1949) (“Civil as distinguished from criminal contempt is a sanction to enforce
compliance with an order of the court or to compensate for losses or damages sustained by

reason of noncompliance.”). The movant must prove civil contempt by clear and convincing
evidence. O’Connor, 972 F.2d at 1210. “A district court has broad discretion in using its
contempt power to require adherence to court orders.” O’Connor, 972 F.2d at 1209.
In her motion, Ms. Haskew contends that her former attorneys failed to return her original
paper file and thumb drive that she provided to them in violation of this Court’s order of July 10,
2020 (Doc. 64). Doc. 66 at 1. In their response, Ms. St. Dennis and Ms. Barkley explain that
although they were unable to return the complete file on July 14, 2020, the day Ms. Haskew
visited their offices and requested her file, Ms. Haskew’s entire file and thumb drive was
returned to her on July 16, 2020. Doc. 67 at 2.
While the Court ordered Ms. St. Dennis and Ms. Barkley “to return to Ms. Haskew the
‘original paper file and thumb drive’ that Ms. Haskew provided to them . . .,” the Court’s order
did not set a deadline for them to return the materials. Doc. 64 at 4. Ms. Haskew complains
that her former counsel did not return the paper file and thumb drive on July 14, 2020. Doc. 66.
She does not dispute, however, that Ms. St. Dennis and Ms. Barkley returned her entire paper file
and thumb drive on July 16, 2020—less than 10 days after the Court ordered the materials
returned. See Doc. 64. Ms. St. Dennis and Ms. Barkley fully complied with the Court’s order
on July 16, 2020. Ms. Haskew has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Ms.
St. Dennis and Ms. Barkley violated the Court’s order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Krisanne Haskew’s Motion [for] Contempt
of Court (Doc. 66) is DENIED.

_________________________
Laura Fashing
United States Magistrate Judge
2