Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01655/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01655-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 As the check Plaintiffs received from Defendants had not yet cleared as of the day

of the hearing, the court continued the hearing to April 18, 2006. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall

inform the court no later than April 17, 2006 if the check clears and no further hearing is

necessary. If the check does not clear, the court will consider at the April 18, 2006 hearing

Plaintiffs’ request to reduce the sanctions order to a judgment.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RACHELE GRINZI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CURTIS BARNES, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 04-1655 PVT

ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANTS CURTIS

BARNES AND CURTIS O. BARNES, P.C. IN

CONTEMPT

On March 3, 2006, this court issued an order to Defendants to show cause why they

should not be held in contempt. The order to show cause required Defendants to file a brief no

later than March 14, 2006 explaining why they had not yet complied with this court’s prior order. 

It also ordered Defendants to appear before the court on March 28, 2006. Defendants failed to

comply with either part of the court’s order. They filed no brief to explain why they had not

complied with the court’s prior order. And they failed to appear before the court on March 28,

2006. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the court that Defendants had finally

transferred title to the vehicle, and had paid virtually all of the sanctions due under this court’s

prior order.1 Based on the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this court holds in contempt Defendants Curtis Barnes

Case 5:04-cv-01655-PVT Document 121 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2
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

ORDER, page 2

and Curtis O. Barnes, P.C.. In light of Defendants compliance with this court’s prior orders,

albeit belated, the court will not order the incarceration of Curtis Barnes. However, a contempt

citation is warranted based on Defendants repeated violation of the court’s rules and this court’s

orders. The docket reveals that this court has had to issue orders to show cause against

Defendants on three separate occasions in order to secure their compliance with this court’s rules

and orders. If in the next five years either Defendant, or any attorney of record for Defendants in

this matter, represent any litigant in any action in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California, they shall serve and file a copy of this order in that action.

Dated: 3/30/06 

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-01655-PVT Document 121 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2