Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards et al v. A & G Coal Corporation
Filing
111
OPINION and ORDER granting 104 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 1/31/2014. (flc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
BIG STONE GAP DIVISION
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
MOUNTAIN STEWARDS, ET AL.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
A & G COAL CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:12CV00009
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Isak Howell and Joseph M. Lovett, Appalachian Mountain Advocates,
Lewisburg, West Virginia, for Plaintiffs; Allen W. Dudley, Jr., General Counsel for
Litigation, and Dustin M. Deane, Associate General Counsel, James C. Justice
Companies, Inc. and Affiliates, Roanoke, Virginia, for Defendant.
The issue before the court is whether to sanction the defendant for failure to
comply with a court order awarding attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff. Upon
consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments, I have determined that
sanctions are appropriate under the court’s inherent authority.
I
As the result of a discovery dispute in this case, the defendant, A & G Coal
Corporation (“A & G”), was ordered on March 14, 2013, to pay the plaintiffs’
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,162.50. 1 No such payment was made, and after
requests for payment that were not answered, the plaintiff moved on November 22,
2013, to hold the defendant in civil contempt. The court directed A & G to
respond to the motion. In its response filed December 9, 2013, A & G announced
that it had that day mailed a check to plaintiffs’ counsel for the ordered fees. The
only excuses given by A & G for not paying earlier was that the court’s order did
not specify a deadline for payment and that at the time the order was entered,
“prior counsel of Record represented A & G.” 2
In response, the plaintiffs have moved the court to find the defendants in
contempt and order it as a sanction to pay interest on the payment just received and
additional attorneys’ fees.
The issues have been fully briefed and are ripe for decision.
II
Civil fines and penalties enforce compliance with court orders and
compensate parties for losses sustained due to their opponents’ failures to comply.
1
Order, Mar. 14, 2013, ECF No. 47. The underlying case itself is currently on
appeal. No. 13-2050 (4th Cir. Aug. 22, 2013) (appeal docketed). The facts of the case
were discussed in detail in two earlier opinions, S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A
& G Coal Corp., No. 2:12CV00009, 2013 WL 3814340 (W.D. Va. July 22, 2013), and S.
Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., No. 2:12CV00009, 2013 WL
5149792 (W.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2013).
2
Def.’s Mem. Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 6, ECF No. 107.
-2-
Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827-29 (1994).
A fine is particularly appropriate where the following elements are found:
(1) the existence of a valid decree of which the alleged contemnor had
actual or constructive knowledge; (2) . . . that the decree was in the
movant's “favor”; (3) . . . that the alleged contemnor by its conduct
violated the terms of the decree, and had knowledge (at least
constructive knowledge) of such violations; and (4) . . . that [the]
movant suffered harm as a result.
Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting Colonial
Williamsburg Found. v. Kittinger Co., 792 F. Supp. 1397, 1405–06 (E.D. Va.
1992), aff’d, 38 F.3d 133, 136 (4th Cir. 1994)).
The defendant failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s Order to pay
attorneys’ fees. The Order was effective as of the date it was entered, March 14,
2013. The defendant received an electronic copy of the Order upon its entry, and
did not file an objection to the Order within the 14 days required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 72(a). Nine months passed before the defendant paid — an
unreasonable delay. Additionally, payment was not made until after the plaintiffs
filed a motion for an order to show cause. In light of the defendant’s delay, I find
that the plaintiffs are entitled to interest in accordance with Virginia’s statutory
judgment rate. Va. Code Ann. § 6.2-302 (2010).
Because of the defendant’s failure to comply with the court’s Order, the
plaintiffs incurred additional attorneys’ fees in attempts to obtain their award. The
plaintiffs seek a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees. Although the hourly rates of
-3-
plaintiffs’ counsel reflect their specialization in environmental litigation, the
plaintiffs were not required to obtain more affordable counsel in order to address
the delinquencies of the defendant. After considering the appropriate factors, see
Barber v. Kimbrell’s, Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 n.28 (4th Cir. 1978) (adopting twelve
factors determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees), I find that the attorneys’
fees requested are reasonable under the circumstances. Additional measures are
also appropriate to ensure that the defendant complies with this and future orders
of this court.
III
For the reasons discussed above, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 104) is GRANTED;
2. The defendant must pay plaintiffs $144.85 in interest;
3. The defendant must pay plaintiffs $2,016.50 in attorneys’ fees; and
4. The defendants must pay an additional $100 each day from the entry of
this Order until payment is made in full of the above amounts.
ENTER: January 31, 2014
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
-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?