Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 In a matter referred under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a

magistrate judge has the power to certify to a district judge

facts supporting the entry of a judgment of contempt for

disobedience of a lawful order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B). If

an act constituting contempt occurs before a magistrate judge,

he or she

shall forthwith certify the facts to a district

judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon

any person whose behavior is brought into

question under this paragraph, an order requiring

such person to appear before a district judge

upon a day certain to show cause why that person

should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH I. MILLER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

IBM CORP., et al.

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C02-2118 MJJ (BZ)

CERTIFICATION OF FACTS RE

CONTEMPT

The undersigned hereby certifies the following facts to

the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins in support of an entry of a

judgment of criminal contempt against defendant International

Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and/or its attorneys of

record, Quinn Emanuel Urguhart Oliver & Hedges LLP.1

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 480 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the facts so certified. The district judge shall

thereupon hear the evidence as to the act or

conduct complained of and, if it is such as to

warrant punishment, punish such person in the

same manner and to the same extent as for a

contempt committed before a district judge.

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6).

The magistrate judge's authority under section 636(e)

encompasses certification for criminal, as well as civil,

contempt. Taberer v. Armstrong World Indus., 954 F.2d 888 (3rd

Cir. 1992); Aldridge v. Young, 782 F. Supp. 1457 (D.Nev. 1991). 

Criminal contempt is appropriate where, as here, the relief

requested is intended to punish past failures rather than to

coerce future compliance. Taberer, 954 F.2d at 897; Aldridge, 782 F. Supp. at 1458.

2

1. In this action, plaintiff sued IBM for breach of

contract, misrepresentation and related claims. On August 2,

2005, Judge Jenkins referred the case to me to conduct a

settlement conference in April 2006.

2. On August 18, 2005, I entered an order scheduling the

settlement conference for Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

Among other things, the order required IBM to appear with its

lead trial counsel and to be represented “by the person or

persons not directly involved in the events which gave rise to

the litigation but with full authority to negotiate a

settlement. A person who needs to call another person not

present before accepting, rejecting or making any settlement

offer does not have full authority.” Order, Page 2, Lines 4 -

9. The order further stated that “[p]ersonal attendance of a

party representative will rarely be excused by the Court, and

then only upon separate written application demonstrating

substantial hardship served on opposing counsel and lodged as

early as the bases for the hardship is known.” Order, Page 2,

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 480 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Lines 18 - 22. 

3. On April 25, 2006, the settlement conference convened

at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff was represented by Byron C. Thompson,

Esq. of Oakland and William F. Mueller, Esq. who had flown in

from New Jersey. Plaintiff flew in from North Carolina where

he was on business and arrived about an hour late because, I

was told, his flight had been delayed. 

4. Defendant appeared by Terry L. Wit, Esq. an attorney

with Quinn Emmanuel. However, lead trial counsel, identified

by plaintiff as Loren Kieve, did not appear. Nor did a

representative from IBM appear. Instead, I was told that IBM's

representative, Associate General Counsel Alec Berman would be

appearing by phone. I had never been asked to excuse Mr.

Berman's personal appearance. Furthermore, it appeared from my

discussions with Mr. Berman about plaintiff’s demand, that he

lacked full authority to settle the case as that term was

defined by my order. He merely stated IBM's position that it

was about to file a summary judgment motion and expected to

prevail. 

5. When I questioned IBM about its apparent failures to

comply with my order, I was told that IBM expected, from what

was or was not said during a recent status conference before

Judge Jenkins, that this settlement conference would not occur. 

Under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to certify

this matter to Judge Jenkins rather than to exercise my

contempt authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(2). 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant

International Business Machines Corporation and its counsel

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 480 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Loren Kieve of Quinn Emmanuel Urguhart Oliver & Hedges LLP 

appear before Judge Jenkins on Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at 9:30 am

in Courtroom 11, 19th floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate

Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 and show cause why

either should not be adjudged in contempt of court for their

failure to participate in the April 25, 2006 settlement

conference as ordered.

DATED: April 26, 2006 

 Bernard Zimmerman

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\REFS.06\MILLER.CERT.OF.FACTS.CONTEMPT.wpd

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 480 Filed 04/27/06 Page 4 of 4