Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-mc-00219/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-mc-00219-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 999
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL MECHANICAL, INC., NO. MISC.S-01-0219 DFL DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

KENNETH RICHARD PRUETT and

SUSAN MICHELLE PRUETT,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

This matter came before the court on November 18, 2005, for

hearing on plaintiff’s motion for civil contempt sanctions due to

defendants’ failure to appear at a judgment debtor examination as

ordered by the court. Kelly S. Kern appeared on behalf of

plaintiff. Nathaniel D. Potratz appeared on behalf of defendants. 

After considering all written materials submitted with respect to the

motion, and after hearing oral argument, for the reasons discussed on

the record and set forth below, the court will continue the date of

/////

Case 2:01-mc-00219-DFL-DAD Document 37 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 7
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

1 Defendants assert they returned from Europe on October 11,

2005.

2

the examinations sought by plaintiff to afford defendants a final

opportunity to fully comply with the court’s orders.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a certification

of judgment received from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the

District of Montana. Pursuant to plaintiff’s request, defendants

Kenneth Richard Pruett and Susan Michelle Pruett were ordered in

writing to appear for a judgment debtor examination on September 30,

2005, in Courtroom no. 27, the department of the undersigned

magistrate judge. Defendants failed to appear as ordered. Rather,

counsel for defendants appeared and represented to opposing counsel

and the courtroom deputy of the undersigned that defendants were on a

pre-paid vacation in Europe. At that time the court, through its

courtroom deputy, directed the parties to reach a mutually agreeable

date to re-schedule the examinations. This motion for civil contempt

sanctions followed due to counsel for plaintiff’s suspicion that

defendants in fact were not on vacation as represented, a suspicion

which, according to plaintiff, was confirmed by a private

investigator who photographed Mr. Pruett outside of his home on

October 13, 2005.1

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on October 18, 2005. 

Defendants filed their opposition through counsel on November 1,

2005. Plaintiff’s reply was filed on November 10, 2005. Plaintiff

and defendants also appeared through counsel at the hearing.

Case 2:01-mc-00219-DFL-DAD Document 37 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 7
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

2

 In their opposition defendants argue that this court lacks

jurisdiction to adjudge them in contempt, plaintiff having failed to

personally serve defendants with the contempt motion. In this

regard, counsel for defendants relies on statutory provisions and

case law governing contempt proceedings in California state courts. 

This reliance is misplaced. As the applicable legal standards set

forth below make clear, this is proceeding under this federal court’s

inherent power to enforce compliance with its lawful orders through

civil contempt. Service of plaintiff’s motion by mail upon

defendants’ counsel is fully effective. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b);

L.R. 5-135(f).

3

Accordingly, the record indicates that all parties have been provided

with notice of these contempt proceedings.2

LEGAL STANDARDS

"'[C]ourts have inherent power to enforce compliance with

their lawful orders through civil contempt."' Spallone v. United

States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990)(citation omitted); see also United

States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 303-304

(1947); United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 1999). A

civil contempt sanction such as the one sought here is coercive,

designed to force the contemnor to comply with an order of the court

and must include a “purge” condition. Cunningham v. Hamilton County,

Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 207-08 (1999); Ayres, 166 F.3d at 997; Whittaker

Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 1992). To

support a judgment of contempt, the district court must find, based

on clear and convincing evidence, that the party violated the order;

the violation did not constitute “substantial compliance” with the

order; and the violation was not based on a good faith and reasonable

interpretation of the order. Ayres, 166 F.3d at 994; In re Dual-Deck 

/////

Case 2:01-mc-00219-DFL-DAD Document 37 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 7
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

4

Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.

1993).

“Because civil contempt sanctions are viewed as nonpunitive

and avoidable, fewer procedural protections for such sanctions have

been required." Ayres, 166 F.3d at 995 (quoting International Union,

United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831 (1994). 

Civil contempt "may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon

notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor

proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required." Id. (quoting Bagwell,

512 U.S. at 827). See also Thomas, Head and Greisen Employees Trust

v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996)(rejecting argument that

evidentiary hearing is required so that alleged contemnor may explain

why court should not make contempt finding).

A challenge to the validity of the order the contemnor is

alleged to have violated cannot excuse a failure to comply with that

order. “It is a ‘long-standing rule that a contempt proceeding does

not open to reconsideration the legal or factual basis of the order

alleged to have been disobeyed and thus become a retrial of the

original controversy.’” Ayres, 166 F.3d at 995 (quoting United

States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 756-57 (1983)).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks an order adjudging defendants Kenneth

Richard Pruett and Susan Michelle Pruett in civil contempt for their

failure to comply with this court’s orders directing each of them to

appear for a judgment debtor examination on September 30, 2005. (See

Orders filed August 22, 2005, Doc. nos. 17 (Kenneth Richard Pruett) &

Case 2:01-mc-00219-DFL-DAD Document 37 Filed 11/21/05 Page 4 of 7
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

3

 As noted above (see fn. 1, supra), defendants’ assertion of

lack of notice is misplaced. Defendants’ contention that plaintiff

has failed to prove “willful disobedience” of the court’s orders

“beyond a reasonable doubt” also misapprehends the nature of

plaintiff’s motion.

5

18 (Susan Michelle Pruett).) As set forth above, defendants failed

to appear at their September 30, 2005, examinations. This fact is

undisputed. There also is no evidence of “substantial compliance”

with the court’s order, In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder

Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d at 695; “a present inability to comply,”

Ayres, 166 F.3d at 994; or any other defense against a finding of

contempt, and defendants asserts no such defense.3 Accordingly,

clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that defendants have

violated the court’s August 22, 2005, orders.

Nonetheless, giving defendants the benefit of the doubt

regarding their vacation plans and their assumption that their

attorney had secured a continuance of the September 30, 2005

examinations, and considering that defendants are now represented by

counsel, the court will afford defendants one final opportunity to

appear for examination as directed by this court’s orders filed

August 22, 2005. In this regard, defendants will be ordered to

appear for their examinations on December 2, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. If

defendants do not appear as ordered, it is the court’s intention to

forthwith certify the facts to the assigned district and direct

defendants immediately to appear before the district judge on the

next available calendar to show cause why they should not be adjudged

in civil contempt and incarcerated as a coercive sanction until full

Case 2:01-mc-00219-DFL-DAD Document 37 Filed 11/21/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

compliance with the court’s orders is achieved. See 28 U.S.C.

636(e)(6)(B)(iii); Jones v. J.C. Penney's Dept. Stores, Inc., 228

F.R.D. 190, 198 (W.D. N.Y. 2005).

“[I]n determining how large a coercive sanction should be

the court should consider the ‘character and magnitude of the harm

threatened by continued contumacy, and the probable effectiveness of

any suggested sanction.’” General Signal Corp. v. Donallco, Inc.,

787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting United Mine Workers, 330

U.S. at 304). In this regard, the court recognizes that defendants’

failure to comply with the court’s orders allegedly is due to a

simple miscommunication between defendants, their counsel and

plaintiff’s counsel. Also, until recently defendants have been

proceeding pro se and they did not flout the court’s orders

completely, at least appearing through counsel on September 30, 2005. 

Nonetheless, defendants have failed to comply with orders of this

court issued nearly three months ago and may have made inconsistent

representations to opposing counsel with respect to their failure to

comply. Accordingly, the court finds that incarcerating defendants,

in the event they do not appear as directed, is appropriate and

likely to effectuate compliance with the court’s orders. See S.E.C.

v. Elmas Trading Corp., 824 F.2d 732 (9th Cir. 1987)(holding district

court did not abuse its discretion in adjudging party in civil

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:01-mc-00219-DFL-DAD Document 37 Filed 11/21/05 Page 6 of 7
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

4

 The court has considered recommending the imposition of

monetary sanctions against defendants for each day they continue to

fail to comply with the August 22, 2005, orders as well as sanctions

to cover the expenses incurred by plaintiff in bringing this motion. 

However, in the court’s judgment such a coercive sanction is not

likely to effectuate compliance with the court’s orders.

7

contempt and ordering him incarcerated until required documents

produced).4 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for contempt sanctions is denied

without prejudice;

2. Defendants will be afforded a final opportunity to

comply with this court’s orders filed August 22, 2005. In this

regard, defendants Kenneth Richard Pruett and Susan Michelle Pruett

are order to personally appear for their judgment debtor examinations

on December 2, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom no. 27; and

3. If defendants do not appear as ordered, it is the

court’s intention to forthwith certify the facts to the assigned

district and direct defendants immediately to appear before the

district judge on the next available calendar to show cause why they

should not be adjudged in civil contempt and incarcerated as a

coercive sanction until full compliance with the court’s orders is

achieved.

DATED: November 18, 2005.

DAD:th

civil/russellmechanical.contempt.order

Case 2:01-mc-00219-DFL-DAD Document 37 Filed 11/21/05 Page 7 of 7