Title: VT Womens Health Ctr. v. Operation Rescue

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-035


 Vermont Women's Health Center,               Supreme Court
 Rachel Atkins, Jude Sullivan
 and Susan A.                                 On Appeal from
                                              Chittenden Superior Court
      v.
                                              April Term, 1992
 Operation Rescue, et al


 Richard W. Norton, J.

 John D. Schullenberger and William M. Dorsch of Mickenberg, Dunn,
   Sirotkin & Dorsch, Burlington, for plaintiffs-appellees

 Thomas E. McCormick of McNamara, Fitzpatrick, McCormick & Mertz, P.C.,
   Burlington, Daniel J. Lynch of Lynch & Hadden, St. Albans, and Michael
   Rose (On the Brief), St. Albans, for defendants-appellants


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.  The superior court adjudged fourteen persons (defendants)
 in contempt for actions, protesting abortion, taken at a women's health
 clinic in violation of the court's temporary restraining order (TRO).  The
 court ordered defendants to pay damages and attorneys' fees to plaintiffs,
 the Vermont Women's Health Center and certain of its staff members and
 patients, and subjected defendants to prospective coercive fines.  They
 appeal, claiming that (1) because only one defendant was properly served
 with the TRO, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hold the
 nonserved individuals in contempt; (2) the court's findings that defendants
 had actual notice of the TRO and violated its terms were erroneous; and (3)
 the court incorrectly assessed damages and fees and improperly imposed
 prospective fines.  We affirm.
      In November 1988, the superior court issued a TRO directed to
 Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion organization; defendant Michael McHugh;
 and "all other persons, groups and organizations acting in concert with
 either Operation Rescue or Michael McHugh."  The TRO, which was extended by
 the court in December 1988 and remains in effect by stipulation of the
 parties, prohibits the following conduct:

           1.  Blocking any doorway, entrance, driveway or parking
           lot at the Vermont Women's Health Center . . .

           2.  Entering or attempting to enter the building . . .

           3.  Directing bullhorns, shouting, yelling or otherwise
           verbally directing sounds to the interior of the Vermont
           Women's Health Center . . .

           4.  Physically blocking the entry of any persons to the
           Vermont Women's Health Center . . . .

      On October 24, 1989, a group led by defendant McHugh of more than fifty
 persons, including the remaining defendants, physically invaded the grounds
 and building of the health center.  They blocked doorways and exits of the
 building and positioned a ten-wheel truck to block the driveway.  Many of
 them locked themselves to one another in the hallways of the building; they
 made a great deal of noise singing and chanting.  As a result, health
 services for women scheduled for that day, including cancer-related
 examinations and other tests, as well as abortions, were cancelled.  Two
 police officers were injured as they attempted to enter the building through
 doors pulled shut by protesters.  The use of mace and tear gas was
 ultimately required to gain entry and control.  Once inside, the chief of
 police read the face sheet of the injunction, listing the prohibited
 activities, in a loud and clear voice, in each of the two main wings of the
 building.  Police then arrested defendants and the other protesters for
 unlawful trespass and removed them from the building.
      Plaintiffs subsequently brought a civil contempt action against
 defendants for violation of the TRO, serving each with copies of the court's
 order and the motion for contempt.  Following evidentiary hearings held
 December 20, 1989, and January 17, 1990, the court found defendants in
 contempt, held them liable to plaintiffs for certain fees, costs, and
 damages, and subjected them to prospective coercive fines to be assessed in
 the event of future violations of the court's order.  This appeal followed.
      We address first defendants' claim that the court lacked subject matter
 jurisdiction to hold any of them, other than Michael McHugh, in contempt
 because they were not parties named in the TRO and were not properly served
 with the order, as required by 12 V.S.A. { 122.  While service of the order
 was made on McHugh and the organizational defendant prior to October 24,
 1989, the order was not served, prior to its violation, upon the remaining
 defendants other than by police officers at the health center at the time
 the protest was taking place.
      Defendants' argument is based on the wording of 12 V.S.A. { 122, which
 allows for the commencement of contempt proceedings against a party for
 violation of a court order only if there has been "service of the order upon
 that party."  In defendants' view, the failure to effect personal service of
 the TRO on defendants prior to the alleged violation deprives the court of
 jurisdiction to find them in contempt.
      Plaintiffs' position is based on V.R.C.P. 65(d), which provides that a
 restraining order or injunction is binding "upon the parties to the action
 . . . and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them
 who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise."
 The relevant language is identical to that of Federal Rule of Civil
 Procedure 65(d).  Decisions under the federal rule and similar state rules
 have uniformly allowed the enforcement of injunctive decrees against unnamed
 parties with actual notice, where they meet the other criteria of Rule
 65(d), despite the absence of formal service.  See, e.g., National
 Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, 747 F. Supp. 772, 775 (D.D.C.
 1990) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), "it is not necessary to show formal
 service of the order on the non-party" with actual notice); Bratton v. MGK,
 Inc.,