Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00061/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00061-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REVEREND ANTHONY MAJORS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-00061 CRB

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND TO

SHOW CAUSE RE: CIVIL

CONTEMPT

Now pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Maria Elena James regarding the civil contempt of plaintiff Reverend Anthony Majors. 

Plaintiff Majors has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation and has not

otherwise communicated with the Court. Having carefully reviewed the Report and

Recommendation, the Court ADOPTS it in its entirety. The Magistrate Judge’s findings

establish that Reverend Majors intentionally violated the settlement agreement, lied under

oath to the court, and willfully refused to comply with the court’s order that he pay

defendants $60,000 to compensate them for their damages incurred as a result of his violation

of the settlement agreement.

“Civil contempt sanctions . . . are employed for two purposes: to coerce the defendant

into compliance with the court’s order, and to compensate the complainant for losses

sustained.” Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations 

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 127 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\0061\ordertoshowcause.wpd 2

omitted). Moreover, “[u]nlike the punitive nature of criminal sanctions, civil sanctions are

wholly remedial.” Id. Courts have “longstanding authority . . . to enter broad compensatory

awards for all contempt through civil proceedings.” United Mine Workers of America v.

Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 838 (1994). However, compensatory sanctions are limited to “the

actual damages suffered by the injured party as a result of the violation of the injunction.” 

Federal Trade Com’n v. Productive Marketing Inc., 136 F.Supp.2d 1096, 1112 (C.D. Cal.

2001) (citing G&C Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., Inc., 639 F.2d 29, 41 (1st Cir.

1980)). 

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that an award to defendants of $60,617 to

retire the loan and $3,335.34 to reimburse the church for penalties associated with the loan

are appropriate remedial compensatory sanctions. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate

Judge that defendants are entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $27,741.10.

A compensatory civil contempt allows the aggrieved party to obtain attorneys’ fees. See

Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 507 (9th Cir. 2002); Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich Legal and Professional Publications, Inc. v. Multistate Legal Studies, Inc., 26

F.3d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Accordingly, Reverend Majors is ordered to pay defendants the above amounts on or

before September 1, 2006. If he does not pay defendants in full by that date, he must show

cause why he should not be held in further contempt of the Court’s orders. Any written

materials in support of his argument shall be filed on or before September 5, 2006. The

Court will hold a show cause hearing on Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 10:00 a.m in

Courtroom 8. Reverend Majors must personally appear at the hearing. The Court will

consider all appropriate coercive sanctions, including incarceration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 127 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\0061\ordertoshowcause.wpd 3

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 127 Filed 08/17/06 Page 3 of 3