Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00640/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00640-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

S.A.R.L. Aquatonic Laboratories PBE, a

French corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Marie Katelle, Inc., an Arizona

corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-0640-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s supplement to petition for order to show cause

regarding contempt (doc. 82) and defendant’s response (doc. 84). We also have before us

Joel A. Gildar’s motion to withdraw as counsel for defendant (doc. 80), plaintiff’s

response (doc. 81), and Mr. Gildar’s reply (doc. 83). 

On February 13, 2008, plaintiff sought an order compelling defendant to attend a

hearing to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with a

subpoena duces tecum and notice of deposition. Plaintiff’s Petition at 1. The order was

granted and a hearing was held on June 27, 2008. Minute Entry (doc. 79). At the

hearing, we found the defendant in contempt under rule 45(e) and granted leave for the

plaintiff to seek supplemental relief for the defendant’s contempt. We also denied Mr.

Gildar’s oral motion to withdraw as counsel. Plaintiff now requests that we hold JeanCase 2:06-cv-00640-FJM Document 93 Filed 10/07/08 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

Carlo Sitzia Le Blond, president and CEO of Marie Katelle, Inc., in contempt, and Mr.

Gildar again moves to withdraw. 

Plaintiff claims that Mr. Le Blond may be held in contempt for the defendant’s

failure to comply with the court’s order because he had knowledge of the order and aided

or abetted defendant’s contempt. See U.S. v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 535 (9th Cir. 1988);

N.L.R.B. v. Trans Ocean Export Packing, Inc., 473 F.2d 612, 618 (9th Cir. 1973). Before

we may hold Mr. Le Blond in contempt, however, we must have personal jurisdiction

over him. In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 94 F.3d 539, 545

(9th Cir. 1996) (“‘[W]hen it is sought to charge a person with contempt who was not a

party to the original action and thus not already within the jurisdiction of the court, that

party must be served with process as in any other civil action.’”) (citation omitted). 

Because Mr. Le Blond is not a party to this action, holding him in contempt is not proper

at this time. 

The remaining issue is Mr. Gildar’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the

defendant. Because a corporation may appear only through a licensed attorney, Mr. Gidar

is in the unenviable position of continuing as counsel for a non-responsive client through

post-judgment proceedings. We will grant Mr. Gildar’s motion to withdraw and order

that all further papers be served on defendant’s statutory agent. 

We also refer defendant’s continued contempt to the Arizona Attorney General. 

The Attorney General is authorized to bring a petition in state court for the dissolution of

a corporation where the corporation “continue[s] to exceed or abuse the authority

conferred on it by law.” A.R.S. § 10-1430(A)(1). It is our view that defendant has

continued to abuse the privilege of corporate status by failing to comply with the court’s

order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s supplement to

petition for order to show cause (doc. 82). This is without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to

properly serve Mr. Le Blond and initiate contempt proceedings against him. 

Case 2:06-cv-00640-FJM Document 93 Filed 10/07/08 Page 2 of 3
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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Mr. Gildar’s motion to withdraw as

counsel for defendant Marie Katelle, Inc. (doc. 80). All further notice to the defendant

shall be to its statutory agent at: CT Corporation System, 2394 East Camelback Road,

Phoenix, AZ 85016.

DATED this 7th day of October, 2008.

cc: Office of the Attorney General

 Civil Section

Case 2:06-cv-00640-FJM Document 93 Filed 10/07/08 Page 3 of 3