Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00654/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00654-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COMPASS BANK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRIS CERULLO WORLD

EVANGELISM,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 13-CV-0654-BAS (WVG)

ORDER CERTIFYING FACTS

RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

AGAINST JACK WILKINSON 

Pending before the Court is Defendant Morris Cerullo World Evangelism’s

(“Defendant”) Motion for Contempt AgainstJackWilkinson (“Mr. Wilkinson”), a defaulted

party to this litigation. (Doc. No. 271.) On May 28, 2015, this Court issued an Order

Granting Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Against Mr. Wilkinson. (Doc. No. 178.) Mr.

Wilkinson was ordered to pay Defendant the total amount of $12,496.00 in attorneys’ fees

and costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 37 by July 31, 2015. Id. at

13-14. Defendant claims that, to date, Mr. Wilkinson has failed to remit sanctions pursuant

to this Court’s Order. (Doc. No. 271 at 2.) Defendant asks this Court to recommend to the

Honorable Cynthia Bashant, United States District Judge, that Mr. Wilkinson be held in

1 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 13
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

contempt of court, a finding which Mr. Wilkinson may vacate by paying the full amount of

sanctions, plus interest, to Defendant. (Doc. No. 320 at 2.) 1/

Defendant also asksthis Court to recommend to Judge Bashant that, as of October 20,

2015, the amount of fees and costs Defendant has incurred due to Mr. Wilkinson’s

violations of the Court’s orders is $19,015, that the Court should levy a $2,000 fine against

Mr. Wilkinson as part of the contempt finding and in order to deter further defiance of this

Court’s orders, and that the Court should enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against

Mr. Wilkinson in the amount of $21,015 ($19,015 in fees and costs, plus $2,000 fine), plus

interest, with the caveat that Defendant may apply to amend the judgment to include

additional attorney fees and costs if any are incurred during attempts to enforce the

judgment. Id. at 2-3.

I. APPLICABLE LAW

A. CIVIL CONTEMPT

Civil contempt may be found where a party disobeys a specific and definite court

order. In re Dual-Deck Video Casette Recorder Antitrust Lit., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.

1993). The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that

the alleged contemnor violated a court order. In re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir.

2002), Stone v. City of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden then

shifts to the alleged contemnor to demonstrate why s/he was unable to comply. Reno Air

Racing Assn. v. Mccord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006). In the Ninth Circuit, the rule

with regard to contempt is whether the alleged contemnor performed “all reasonable steps

within his/her power to ensure compliance” with the court’s orders. Stone, 968 F.2d at 856. 

Intent is irrelevant to a finding of civil contempt, and therefore, good faith is not a defense. 

Id. Inability to comply with the court order is a complete defense to civil contempt. F.T.C.

v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999).

Within 30 days of Mr. Wilkinson paying the full amount of sanctions, Defendant 1/

states that it shall provide notice to the Court that he has satisfied his obligations, and the

Court would then vacate the contempt finding. (Doc. No. 320 at 2.) 

2 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 13
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

In civil contempt proceedings, in the proper situation, judicial sanctions may be

employed to “coerce the (alleged contemnor) into compliance with the court’s order,” and/or

“compensate the complainant for losses sustained.” UMW v. Lewis, 330 U.S. 258 (1947). 

Where compensation is intended, any fine imposed must be based on the evidence of the

complainant’s actual loss. Id. at 304. Where the purpose is to make the alleged contemnor

comply with the court order, the court must exercise its discretion, taking into account the

character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy and the probable

effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the desired result. Id. In fixing

the amount of a fine to be imposed as a punishment or as a means of securing future

compliance, a court should consider the amount of the alleged contemnor’s financial

resources and consequent seriousness of the burden to the alleged contemnor. Id. 

B. AUTHORITY TO CERTIFY FACTS TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE

Magistrate Judges do not have authority to make findings of contempt, so they must

refer contempt charges with a certification of their factual findings to the District Judge. 28

U.S.C. § 636(e);Bingman v. Ward, 100 F.3d 653, 656-657 (9th Cir. 1996). The jurisdiction,

powers, and temporary assignments of United States Magistrate Judges are addressed in 28

U.S.C. § 636, in pertinent part.

(6) Certification of other contempts to the district court.--Upon the commission

of any such act–

...

(B) in any other case or proceeding under subsection (a) or (b) of this section,

or any other statute, where--

...

(iii) the act constitutes a civil contempt,

the magistrate judge 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 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).

3 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 13
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

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. DEPOSITION ATTEMPTS

Defendant, believing that Mr. Wilkinson had information that was vital to this case,

sought to obtain that information through a deposition. Defense counsel attempted to

contact Mr. Wilkinson to obtain deposition dates, times, and locations. (Doc. No. 133-1 at

3.) Despite Defendant noticing his deposition on three separate occasions, Mr. Wilkinson

failed to appear for his deposition. Id. at 8. 

1. FIRST FAILED DEPOSITION

On October 15, 2014, Mr. Wilkinson sent an email to Defense counsel advising that

he could make himself available for a deposition and provided his contact information. 

(Doc. No. 133-1 at 3.) On November 14, 2014, Mr. Wilkinson emailed Defense counsel and

agreed to appear for a deposition and produce documents on December 16, 2014. Id. Mr.

Wilkinson was served with a deposition subpoena on November 19, 2014. Id. On the

afternoon of December 15, 2014, less than 24 hours before his scheduled deposition, Mr.

Wilkinson telephoned Defense counsel and asked to reschedule due to child care conflicts. 

Id. Defense counsel agreed to continue the deposition to January 6, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., per

Mr. Wilkinson’s suggestion. Id. 

2. SECOND FAILED DEPOSITION

In an attempt to accommodate Mr. Wilkinson and avoid embarrassment, Defense

counsel attempted to coordinate a date, time, and location for service. (Doc. No. 1331-1 at

3.) On December 16, 2014, Mr. Wilkinson responded that he could accept service of

Defendant’s deposition subpoena on December 17, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at a Starbuckslocated

in Menifee, California. Id. Mr. Wilkinson was personally served with the subpoena

noticing his January 6, 2015 deposition. Id. On January 5, 2015, again less than 24 hours

before his scheduled deposition, Defense counsel wasinformed by Mr. Wilkinson via e-mail

that he would be unable to attend the deposition due to a “medical issue that has worsened

over the last 5 days.” Id. Mr. Wilkinson offered to reschedule, but did not provide a date

or time to reschedule the deposition. Id. at 3-4. On January 6, 2015, Defense counsel

4 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 4 of 13
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

appeared at the deposition asscheduled and, when Mr. Wilkinson failed to appear, recorded

his non-appearance. Id. at 4. 

3. THIRD FAILED DEPOSITION

Between January 6, 2015 and January 21, 2015, Defense counsel made several

attempts to obtain a new date for Mr. Wilkinson’s deposition. (Doc. No. 133-1 at 4.) On

January 26, 2015, Mr. Wilkinson emailed Defense counsel suggesting a February 21, 2015

deposition date. Id. Defense counsel advised Mr. Wilkinson that the discovery cutoff

deadline in the case was February 20, 2015 and, thus, February 21, 2015 would not work. 

Id. Instead, Defense counsel proposed February 3, 2015, but Mr. Wilkinson did not

respond. Id. 

On January 29, 2015, Defense counsel advised Mr. Wilkinson that Defendant

intended to bring a Contempt Motion against him due to his continued failure to respond

and sit for his deposition. (Doc. No. 133-1 at 4.) On January 30, 2015, Defense counsel

received a response from Mr. Wilkinson advising of his availability to sit for a deposition

on February 18, 2015. Id. On February 3, 2015, Defense counsel received an email from

Mr. Wilkinson advising that he was able to “excuse himself from work on Thursday the

19th” of February and that a “start time of 9 a.m. or 10 a.m. would be fined [sic], providing

we can still make the Temecula location work.” Id. Mr. Wilkinson provided Defense

counsel with a location at which to personally serve him with the subpoena. Id. On

February 4, 2015, Mr. Wilkinson was personally served with a notice for a deposition on

February 19, 2015. Id. 

On February 18, 2015, at approximately 5:30 p.m., after normal business hours and

on the eve of his deposition scheduled at 10 a.m. the next day, Mr. Wilkinson called Defense

counsel to advise that he would be unable to attend the deposition due to a medical

condition. (Doc. No. 133-1 at 5.) On February 19, 2015, Defense counsel was forced to

again record Mr. Wilkinson’s non-appearance. Id. 

//

5 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 5 of 13
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

B. DEFENDANT’S FIRST CONTEMPT MOTION/REQUEST FOR AN

 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

As a result of Mr. Wilkinson’s continued evasion of his obligations pursuant to

subpoenas to appear for his deposition, Defendant filed a Contempt Motion on February 19,

2015. (Doc. No. 99.) The Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) as to why Mr. 2/

Wilkinson should not be held in contempt for his failure to attend his deposition. (Doc. No.

100.) 

On March 5, 2015, this Court held an OSC Hearing. Mr. Wilkinson appeared in the

undersigned’s courtroom for the hearing. (Doc. No. 108 at 2.) Also appearing at the

hearing were Mr. Steven Blake, Mr. Andrew Hall, and Mr. Louis Galuppo on behalf of

Defendant, Defense representative, Mr. Lynn Hodge, and Mr. Patrick Kane on behalf of

Plaintiff. Id. During the OSC Hearing, the Court told Mr. Wilkinson that he was a key

witness, and that fact discovery had already concluded in this case. Id. Mr. Wilkinson was

ordered to remain in the courthouse and sit for his deposition (in the jury deliberation room)

for as long as allowed by the Rules. Id. The Court warned Mr. Wilkinson that a violation

of its Order to immediately sit for his deposition would result in very serious sanctions. Id. 

Mr. Wilkinson complied.

On March 5, 2015, after one and a half to two hours of deposition testimony, the

parties informed the Court that Mr. Wilkinson was ill and they were going to conclude his

deposition for the day. (Doc. No. 108 at 2, n.2.) At approximately 1:00 p.m., the Court

went back on the record and ordered Mr. Wilkinson to appear at Defense counsel’s office

to continue his deposition on March 6, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Wilkinson was once again

warned by the Court that failure to appear for his continued deposition could result in swift

and harsh sanctions. Id. 

Defendant titled its Motion, “Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Jack 2/

Wilkinson Should Not Be Held In Contempt.” (Doc. No. 99.) However, in its Conclusion

section of the Motion, Defendant requested that the Court hold Mr. Wilkinson in contempt,

or, in the alternative, issue an Order to Show Cause why he should not be held in contempt. 

Id. at 9. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause, but to the

extent Defendant also sought a contempt order at that time, the Court denied Defendant’s

request. (Doc. No. 100.)

6 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 6 of 13
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

On March 6, 2015, Mr. Wilkinson appeared for his continued deposition, but the

parties were only able to obtain testimony for a short period of time before Mr. Wilkinson

again indicated that he was too ill to proceed. (Doc. No. 133-1 at 6.) The parties contacted

the Court to advise of the situation and the Court ordered Mr. Wilkinson to return to

Defense counsel’s office to complete his deposition on March 10, 2015. Id. The Court

warned Mr. Wilkinson that failure to appear most likely would result in sanctions or a civil

contempt order. Id.

On March 10, 2015, Mr. Wilkinson appeared at defense counsel’s office and sat for

his deposition, which concluded that day. (Doc. No. 133-1 at 6.)

C. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

During the OSC Hearing, the Court inquired as to whether either party would seek

monetary sanctions against Mr. Wilkinson for costs related to his failure to appear at the

noticed depositions. (Doc. No. 108 at 2.) On March 6, 2015, both parties notified the Court

that they intended to seek monetary sanctions against Mr. Wilkinson. (Doc. No. 178 at 3.) 

The Court ordered Plaintiff and Defendant to each file a motion seeking monetary sanctions

against Mr. Wilkinson by March 25, 2015. (Doc. No. 108 at 3.) The Court instructed that

the Motions were to include Declarations by counsel, as well as detailed time calculations

and descriptions of activities in attempting to obtain Mr. Wilkinson’s deposition. Id. The

Court ordered that, if the parties sought monetary sanctions related to travel, lodging, or

court reporters, they were to provide proof of all costs incurred. Id. 

The Court also ordered both Plaintiff and Defendant to ensure that Mr. Wilkinson

received the Court’s Order, and to confirm with the Court that he had received the Order. 

(Doc. No. 108 at 3.) Mr. Wilkinson was ordered to lodge a Response to both Plaintiff’s and

Defendant’s motionsseeking monetary sanctions by April 8, 2015. Id. On March 25, 2015,

counsel for both parties confirmed with the Court that they had each provided Mr.

Wilkinson with a copy of the Court’s Order. (Doc. No. 178 at 3.) Defense counsel informed

the Court that Mr. Wilkinson had acknowledged receipt of the Order. Id.

7 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 7 of 13
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

On March 25, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions Against Jack Wilkinson

for costs related to his failure to appear at the noticed depositions. (Doc. No. 133.) 3/

Defendant claimed that it unsuccessfully expended both time and resources over several

months in an attempt to obtain deposition testimony from Mr. Wilkinson. (Doc. No. 133-1

at 1.) In its Motion, Defendant requested monetary sanctions in the amount of $16,555.90

to be issued against Mr. Wilkinson. Id. at 10. Mr. Wilkinson did not file any response.

On May 28, 2015, after a meticulous review of the record, Defendant’s Motion,

Defense counsel’s Declaration, and Defense counsel’s billing statements, the Court granted

in part Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Against Mr. Wilkinson, and awarded Defendant

the amount of $12,496.00 in attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Rule 37. (Doc. No. 178.) 

Defendant was ordered to coordinate with Mr. Wilkinson regarding the payment of this

sanction by June 3, 2015, and Mr. Wilkinson was ordered to submit payment to Defendant

no later than July 31, 2015. Id. at 14.

III. DEFENDANT’S INSTANT MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

On August 7, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Contempt Against Mr. Wilkinson. 

(Doc. No. 271.) In its Motion, Defendant states that Mr. Wilkinson failed to comply with

this Court’s Order to pay Defendant $12,496.00 in sanctions by July 31, 2015. (Doc. No.

271-1 at 2.) Defendantseeks a contempt order against Mr. Wilkinson given his documented

history of abuses and disregard for the judicial process, and because he has failed to provide

any indication that he intends to comply with this Court’s Order imposing sanctions. Id.

A. FIRST CONTEMPT HEARING

On August 7, 2015, the Court issued an Order Setting Briefing Schedule and Hearing

Date for Defendant’s Motion for Contempt Against Mr. Wilkinson. (Doc. No. 276.) Mr.

Wilkinson was ordered to lodge with the Court a response to Defendant’s Contempt Motion

by August 28, 2015, and a Contempt Hearing was set for September 16, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. 

Id. at 2-3. Mr. Wilkinson was ordered to appear in the undersigned’s courtroom for the

Plaintiff did not file a sanctions motion against Mr. Wilkinson. 3/

8 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 8 of 13
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

Hearing. Id. at 3. Counsel was ordered to immediately provide a copy of the Court’s Order

to Mr. Wilkinson. Id. On August 7, 2015, Defense counsel, Mr. Steven Blake, sent Mr. 4/

Wilkinson an email and attached the Court’s Order and provided a copy of his correspondence to the Court. Despite the Court’s Order, Mr. Wilkinson failed to lodge a response to

Defendant’s Contempt Motion, however he did reply to Defense counsel via the same email

correspondence chain on the eve of the September 16, 2015 hearing. A copy of this

correspondence was provided to the Court by Defense counsel. 

On September 16, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., the Court attempted to conduct a Hearing on

Defendant’s Motion for Contempt. Mr. Daniel Watts appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

Despite being ordered to attend, Mr. Wilkinson failed to appear at the Hearing. The Court

waited until 2:15 p.m., and when Mr. Wilkinson still had not appeared, the Court went on

the record with Defense counsel present in the courtroom. 

Defense counsel represented to the Court that he had spoken with Mr. Wilkinson on

the telephone on the afternoon of September 15, 2015, at around 4:30 p.m. Defense counsel

represented that during their conversation, Mr. Wilkinson confirmed receipt of the Court’s

Order setting the Contempt Hearing for September 16, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., and that Mr.

Wilkinson asked if he still had to appear before the undersigned at the Hearing. Defense

counsel told Mr. Wilkinson that he was ordered to appear at the Hearing.

B. SECOND CONTEMPT HEARING

On September 17, 2015, the Court issued an Order Setting Second Briefing Schedule

and Hearing Date for Defendant’s Motion for Contempt Against Mr. Wilkinson. (Doc. No.

308.) Mr. Wilkinson was ordered to lodge with the Court a response to Defendant’s

Contempt Motion by September 30, 2015, and a Contempt Hearing was set for October 14,

2015, at 8:00 a.m. Id. at 4. Mr. Wilkinson was ordered to appear in the undersigned’s

courtroom for the Hearing. Id. Defense counsel was ordered to immediately provide a copy

Although Defendant filed the Motion for Contempt, the Court’s Order mistakenly

4/

instructed that “Plaintiffshall ensure” that Mr. Wilkinson received the Order. (Doc. No. 276

at 3.) The Court confirmed with Defense counsel, Mr. Steven Blake, that on August 7,

2015, he sent Mr. Wilkinson an email with a copy of the Court’s Order.

9 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 9 of 13
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

of the Court’s Order to Mr. Wilkinson, and to confirm with the Court that Mr. Wilkinson

had received the Order. Id. at 4-5. The Court, asstated in the its Order, also emailed a copy

of the Order to Mr. Wilkinson to the address at which Defense counsel had actively

corresponded with Mr. Wilkinson during the litigation. 

On September 25, 2015, Defense counsel informed the Court that Mr. Wilkinson had

received the Court’s September 17, 2015 Order setting the second contempt hearing. 

Defense counsel attached an email from September 18, 2015, where Mr. Wilkinson

confirmed receipt of the Court’s Order. Despite the Court’s Order, Mr. Wilkinson again

failed to lodge a response to Defendant’s Contempt Motion. 

On October 14, 2015, at 8:00 a.m., the Court attempted to conduct a second Hearing

on Defendant’s Motion for Contempt. Mr. Daniel Watts appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

Despite being ordered to attend, Mr. Wilkinson failed to appear at the Hearing. On the

morning of the second Contempt Hearing, the Court received a phone call from Mr.

Wilkinson at 7:47 a.m., stating that he was in traffic and would arrive late to the Hearing. 

Mr. Wilkinson confirmed that he was on his way to the courthouse for the Hearing. At 8:30

a.m., thirty minutes after the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Court’s law clerk called

Mr. Wilkinson, who stated that he was approximately 18 minutes away from the courthouse

at that time. At 8:58 a.m., the Court received another call from Mr. Wilkinson, stating that

he was driving into the downtown area, just a few blocks from the courthouse. The Court

waited nearly another 30 minutes, until 9:25 a.m., and when Mr. Wilkinson still had not

appeared, the Court went on the record with Defense counsel present in the courtroom. At

9:30 a.m., an hour and a half after the Hearing was set to begin, the Court concluded the

Hearing. Mr. Wilkinson still had not appeared. At approximately 10:00 a.m., Mr.

Wilkinson called the Court and asked if he could enter the courtroom. It is unclear where

Mr. Wilkinson was located at the time of his phone call. The Court’s clerk told Mr.

Wilkinson that the second Contempt Hearing was scheduled to begin two hours earlier, the

hearing had concluded, Defense counsel had left the courthouse, and therefore, Mr.

Wilkinson would not be permitted to enter the courtroom.

10 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 10 of 13
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

IV. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

A. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES

On October 21, 2015, as allowed by the Court, Defendantfiled Supplemental Briefing

Regarding Wilkinson Contempt Recommendation. (Doc. No. 320.) Defendant’s brief is 5/

essentially a motion for additional monetary sanctions against Mr. Wilkinson. Defendant

now seeks an additional $6,519.00 in monetary sanctions for its continued efforts to collect

sanctions previously awarded by the Court, and requests that the Court levy a $2,000.00 fine

against Mr. Wilkinson as part of a contempt finding and in order to deter further defiance

of this Court’s orders. Id. at 2. 

Mr. Wilkinson did not file a Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Briefing. 

V. RECOMMENDATION

A. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT

This Court findsthat Mr. Wilkinson has disobeyed a specific and definite court order,

and that Defendant has met its burden ofshowing by clear and convincing evidence that Mr.

Wilkinson has violated the Court’s order to remit $12,496.00. In re Dual-Deck Video

Casette Recorder Antitrust Lit., 10 F.3d at 695; In re Bennett, 298 F.3d at 1069; Stone, 968

F.2d at 856. Mr. Wilkinson has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate why he was unable

to comply. Reno Air Racing Assn., 452 F.3d at 1130. Defendant has provided information

that Mr. Wilkinson is employed. (Doc. No. 133-2.) While income only tells part of an

individual’s financial health, without more and certainly without any input from Mr.

Wilkinson, the Court cannot conclude that Mr. Wilkinson was not able to comply with the

Court’s order. Mr. Wilkinson has failed to pay Defendant $12,496.00 in sanctions in

violation of this Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Monetary Sanctions Against Mr.

Wilkinson (Doc. No. 178), and he has failed to provide the Court with any response as to

why he has failed to comply. Mr. Wilkinson was given two opportunities to respond, in

 The Court’s Order (Doc. No. 318) allowing supplemental briefing was mailed to Mr. Wilkinson 5/

at the address he provided to the Court. It was returned undeliverable for reasons that there is “no such

number” and “unable to forward.” 

11 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 11 of 13
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

writing, to Defendant’s Contempt Motion, and two opportunitiesto appear before the Court

at contempt hearings. Mr. Wilkinson also was provided the opportunity to respond to

Defendant’s supplemental briefing.

For these reasons, and based on all of the facts certified within this Order, the Court

recommendsthat the DistrictJudge issue an Order requiring Mr. Wilkinson to appear in her

courtroom to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts

certified by this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii). Mr. Wilkinson was given many

opportunities to avoid being sanctioned in the first place by simply appearing for his

scheduled depositions. He compounded his problems by avoiding every opportunity given

by the Court to explain why he did not pay the monetary sanction once imposed. 

Accordingly, this Court recommends that, based on the facts certified in this Order, the

DistrictJudge find Mr. Wilkinson in contempt for his failure to pay $12,496.00 in monetary

sanctions to Defendant, in direct violation of this Court’s Order (Doc. No. 178). This Court

also recommends that the District Judge order that Mr. Wilkinson has the ability to vacate

the contempt finding against him by paying the full amount of sanctions, $12,496.00, plus

interest, to Defendant. 

B. DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

The Court finds numerous issues with Defendant’s request for additional monetary

sanctions, including Defendant’s failure to address the reasonableness of the requested

attorneys’ fees, block billing with redactions, discrepanciesin the billing rate for Mr. Watts,

and attempts to collect money from Mr. Wilkinson for tasks related to Defendant’s motion

for sanctions against Plaintiff, which has nothing to do with Mr. Wilkinson. However, the

Court need not analyze those issues, as it finds Defendant’s request for additional monetary

sanctions to be unreasonable and unnecessary. Moreover, it appears that Defendant is

simply attempting to cut its losses by any means possible at the expense of Mr. Wilkinson.

While it istrue that Defense counsel made two unnecessary tripsto the Courthouse and may

have spent time researching and drafting memoranda, the Court questions the wisdom and

reasonableness of “throwing good money after bad.” Clearly, like an ostrich who buries his

12 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 12 of 13
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

head in the sand, Mr. Wilkinson has demonstrated his intent to avoid and evade the entire

litigation process. Given that the Court already expressed its intent to recommend that Mr.

Wilkinson be held in contempt, there was nothing more to be gained by Defendant with

additional research and writing. Defendant’s decision to file supplemental briefing,

although permitted, was not necessary. Nothing new was learned by the Court in the

supplemental briefing except that Defense counsel expended more time and effort to pursue

Mr. Wikinson’s contempt. 

In fixing the amount of a fine to be imposed as a punishment or as a means of

securing future compliance, a court should consider the amount of the alleged contemnor’s

financial resources and consequent seriousness of the burden to the alleged contemnor. 

UMW, 330 U.S. at 304. While Mr. Wilkinson has not provided the Court with any briefing,

nor has he appeared at either of the two contempt hearings to respond to Defendant’s

contempt motion, Defense counsel represented to the Court during the first contempt

hearing that Mr. Wilkinson had inquired about entering into a payment plan with Defendant

to remit the sanctions. Further, the Court has not been presented with any evidence to show

that adding an additional $2,000 fine against Mr. Wilkinson will compel his compliance

with the sanctions Order, nor deter him from continued non-compliance with this Court’s

Orders. 

Defendant’s request that this Court recommend that the District Judge impose an

additional $6,519.00 in monetary sanctions for Defendant’s continued effortsto collectfrom

the Court’s prior Order, and recommend that the Court levy a $2,000.00 fine against Mr.

Wilkinson as part of a contempt finding and in order to deter further defiance of this Court’s

orders, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 13, 2015

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

13 13CV0654

Case 3:13-cv-00654-BAS-WVG Document 326 Filed 11/13/15 Page 13 of 13