Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00061/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00061-8/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 and ANNA

MAJORS,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-05-0061 CRB (MEJ)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

I. INTRODUCTION

This suite was originally brought for civil right violations allegedly occurring in the

workplace. This case settled on July 6, 2005, before this Court. Currently pending before the Court

is Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, filed on March 22, 2006. After careful

consideration of the parties' papers, oral arguments heard at the May 4, 2006 hearing, relevant

statutory and case law authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby certifies this matter for

contempt proceedings. 

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 126 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 7
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

2

II. BACKGROUND

A. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 5, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for various civil rights violations. 

On July 6, 2005, the case settled before Magistrate Maria-Elena James.

On August 23, 2005, the Court held a further settlement conference.

On March 22, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Request

for an Order to Show Cause along with the declarations from Josette D. Johnson, Bruce A.

McIntosh, and Gloria Herbert. 

On March 24, 2006, the Honorable Charles R. Breyer referred this matter to this Court for a

Report and Recommendation.

On April 13, 2006, Plaintiff submitted an exparte extension of time for the opposition.

On April 17, 2006, without Court approval Plaintiff submitted an opposition along with the

declaration of Dorothy Guillory.

On April 18, 2006, without Court approval Plaintiff submitted the declarations of Mary

Woodson, Robert Woodson, Cylinda Thomas.

On April 19, 2006, Plaintiff submitted objections to Defendants evidence. 

On April 24, 2006, Defendants submitted a reply along with the declarations of Thomas E.

Fraysse and John Patton.

On May 1, 2006, Defendants submitted a declaration of Bruce A. McIntosh.

On May 4, 2006, the Court heard a hearing on the matter. Dorothy D. Guillory appeared on

behalf of Plaintiffs, and Thomas E. Fraysse, Edward J. Rodzewich, Bruce A. McIntosh, Christopher

Kee appeared on behalf of Defendants.

On May 17, 2006, Defendants submitted a supplemental declaration of Gloria Herbert.

On May 23, 2006, Plaintiff submitted the declaration of Dorothy Guillory 

On May 30, 2006, Defendants submitted a response to the declaration of Dorothy Guillory.

On June 5, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a response Re: Accounting by Anthony Majors. 

On June 6, 2006, Defendants submitted the declaration of Gloria Herbert in opposition to

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 126 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

Accounting.

B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs sued the City of Oakland for civil rights violations. The suit also named individual

defendants, all of whom are members of the church where Reverend Anthony Majors ("Rev.

Majors") was the pastor. It appears that this case arises out of an employment dispute between Rev.

Majors, the former pastor of Canaan Christian Church and the church membership who desired to

terminate Rev. Majors' employment. The individual church members filed a cross-action, attempting

to protect the assets of the church from Plaintiffs. 

As a result of the settlement conference, both plaintiffs' claims against the individual parties

and Canaan's counterclaims were resolved. Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs $95,000 in exchange

for Rev. Majors resignation as pastor no later than August 15, 2005; the return of all church property

in his possession, custody or control; waiver of all claims against the church; "payment shall

constitute and be in lieu of any and all compensation that the Majors claim or might otherwise

receive as a result of their activities or relationship with Canaan;" and Plaintiffs agreed not to contest

Defendants' third party complaint for declaratory relief. (See Johnson Decl., Exhibit B.) Although

the settlement agreement was not reduced into writing until after the settlement conference, the

parties executed the agreement with an effective date of July 6, 2005.

When Defendants entered the church property on August 15, 2005, the mailman delivered

Bank of America closing statements showing that the accounts had been closed on August 11, 2005.

(Herbert Declaration ¶ 2.) Defendants did not know the church had a Bank of America Account. Id. 

It was out of pure chance that Defendants learned of the new bank account. Id. Defendants inquired

of the Bank of America for copies of the cancelled checks, but were informed they needed

authorization from Rev. Majors. Id. Defendants subpoenaed the records because Rev. Majors

refused to cooperate. Id.

In addition to Bank of America statements, Defendants were also surprised not to find items

of personalty, which Plaintiffs agreed to return. These items included remote electric gate openers,

keys, and a computer. Id. Based on the missing personalty items and the Bank of America bank

account statements, Defendants believed Rev. Majors had not returned church property and, thus

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 126 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

refused to pay the settlement funds.

As a result of this dispute, this Court held a further settlement conference on August 23,

2005. (Herbert Decl., Exhibit A at 12.) The dispute centered around whether Rev. Majors turned

over all the church property. Id. Thus, the Court placed Rev. Majors on the record, under oath, to

testify under penalty of perjury that all the church belongings had in fact been turned over. Id. Under

oath, Rev. Majors represented that he turned over all church property that was in his possession and

control. Id. at 13. With the understanding that Rev. Majors had turned over all church property that

was either in his possession or control; including all account information, bank accounts, money that

was in that bank account, Defendants tendered the settlement payment. Id. 

Defendants independent research revealed that prior to the settlement conference on July 6,

2005, and without informing the church members and without authorization of the true church board,

Rev. Majors borrowed $60,000 secured by the church reality located in Oakland. (Johnson

Declaration, Exhibit F at 24 - 27, 98 - 100.) After the lender fees were paid out of the proceeds of

the loan, $52,265.62 was deposited into a new Bank of America checking account opened in the

Church's name by Rev. Majors in June 2005. (Johnson Decl., Exhibit C, D, E.) The loan closed on

June 22, 2005, five days before the church members recorded a lis pendens. However, this bank

account and loan were never disclosed before, during, or after settlement negotiations. 

The Bank of America statements showed that the very next day after the settlement

conference, July 7, 2005, a series of checks were drawn against the new bank account holding the

loan proceeds. (Johnson Declaration., Exhibit C.) Rev. Majors received checks for "back pay,

current pay, and severance package" pay in the amount of $32,000. Id. Another $11,200 of church

funds were paid for Rev. Majors' income tax withholdings and social security taxes, although as a

pastor he is exempt from the latter. (Johnson Decl., Exhibit C at 34-72; Exhibit G; Declaration of

Gloria Herbert ¶ 4.) Another $3,000 of church funds were paid to others aligned with Plaintiffs as

"love offerings." (Johnson Decl., Exhibit C at 34-72; Exhibit G.) The payments ended when the

accounts were closed with zero balances on August 11, 2005, just days before Rev. Majors departed

the church. (Johnson Decl., Exhibit C at 3-5.)

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 126 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e), a magistrate may certify to the district court facts possibly

constituting contempt. 28 U.S.C. § 636(e) (2005). The following acts or conduct constitute

contempt: “(1) disobedience or resistance to any lawful order, process, or writ; (2) misbehavior at a

hearing or other proceeding, or so near the place thereof as to obstruct the same; (3) failure to

produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent document” and (4) “any other act or

conduct which if committed before a judge of the district court would constitute contempt of such

court.” Id. Upon certification of such facts, any person whose behavior is brought into question

under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (e) may be ordered to appear before a district court judge to show cause why

he should not be held in contempt by reason of the facts so certified. Id.

B. Application to the Case Bar

As an initial matter, there is no dispute that the district court retained jurisdiction to enforce

the settlement agreement. Therefore, this issue is not addressed.

At the hearing, Plaintiffs did not deny the existence of the church loan. There is also no

dispute that at no point during the settlement negotiations did Plaintiffs disclose the existence of the

loan proceeds. However, Plaintiffs’ attorney attempted to make a distinction between “settling

church members” and “non settling church members.” (Plaintiffs’ Opposition at 5.) Plaintiffs claim

that after the “non-settling church members found out that Rev. Majors would be resigning, they

voted to disburse loan funds the way they saw fit.” Id. Rev. Majors cashed the checks before

receiving a written settlement agreement. Id. 

This Court has never heard of a distinction between “settling church members” and “non

settling church members” prior to this hearing. The Court finds this a simple a play on semantics in

an effort to avoid what is shown by the record. In addition, it is clear from the hearing that Rev.

Majors cashed the checks after the matter was settled on the record. The mere technicality of not

having a written settlement agreement is without merit. Rev. Majors knew from the settlement

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 126 Filed 08/04/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

negotiations, the terms placed on the record, and the settlement agreement that he signed that he was

receiving $95,000 in lieu of any and all compensation that the Majors claim or might otherwise

receive as a result of their activities or relationship with Canaan.” (Johnson Decl., Exhibit B,

Agreement (c).) There is no good argument that could possibly excuse or even remotely explain

Rev. Majors’ conduct. He simply violated the settlement agreement. 

In addition, Rev. Majors blatantly lied to the Court at the further settlement conference held

on August 23, 2005. The dispute centered around whether Rev. Majors turned over all the church

property. Thus, the Court placed Rev. Majors on the record, under oath, to testify under penalty of

perjury that all the church belongings had in fact been turned over. Under oath, Rev. Majors

represented that he turned over all church property that was in his possession and control. With the

understanding that Rev. Majors had turned over all church property that was either in his possession

or control; including all account information, bank accounts, money that was in that bank account,

Defendants tendered the settlement payment. At the hearing on May 4, 2006, Plaintiffs’ attorney

represented to this Court that Rev. Majors did not in fact have any money at the August 23, 2005,

hearing because he had spent it. According to Plaintiffs’ attorney, Rev. Majors did not lie because

he had no money at the very moment. This argument is ridiculous. Rev. Majors’ conduct not only

violated the spirit of the settlement agreement but also the letter of the agreement. It is without

question Rev. Majors conduct is unexcusable. 

Outraged by Rev. Majors behavior, this Court Ordered that all $60.000 of the loan money be

returned to the church coffers along with an accounting of any legitimate expenditures. The Court

received a post hearing declaration from Plaintiffs’ attorney. It appears that Rev. Majors has

“decided not to repay the monies he received from third-party members of Canaan Christian

Covenant Church.” Post-Hearing Decl. Guillory at 3. Accordingly, the Court certifies this facts for

contempt proceedings. 

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 126 Filed 08/04/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

IV. CONCLUSION

It is the Court’s recommendation that the Defendants be awarded 60,617.47 to retire the loan

and $3,335.34 to reimburse the church for interest and penalties associated with the loan. (Herbert

Decl., ¶ 5 and 9.) In addition, the Court recommends that Defendants be awarded costs and attorneys

fees in the amount of $27,741.10. (See Declarations of Johnson and McIntosh.) Lastly, the Court

recommends that Plaintiffs’ be held in contempt until all the monies are paid in full. 

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, a party may serve and file objections to this Report and

Recommendation within 10 days after being served with a copy of said report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00061-CRB Document 126 Filed 08/04/06 Page 7 of 7