Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08072/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08072-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond Parenteau and Jolene Parenteau,

etc., et al,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Prescott Unified School District, etc., et al,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8072-PCT-NVW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Pending is Defendants’ February 16, 2010 Motion to Compel Compliance with

Court’s January 11, 2010 order. (docket # 178) The assigned District Judge, the Hon. Neil

V. Wake, has referred the post-judgment debtor examinations, all garnishment and related

motions to the undersigned pursuant to LRCiv 72.1(b) and 72.2(a)(8). (docket ## 118, 179)

Defendants inform the undersigned Magistrate Judge that “[d]espite numerous

communications with Mr. Lassen’s attorney, over a month has passed since [Judge Wake]

issued [his] Order to Mr. Lassen to promptly produce the records and no records have been

forthcoming.” (docket # 178 at 2) (emphasis in original). Neither Mr. Lassen nor his

attorney have responded to Defendants’ Motion. Judge Wake’s January 12, 2010 order

accepts this Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and orders “Lassen and his

Law Office . . . to promptly provide to defense counsel all items listed in Exhibit 1 attached

to each of Defendants’ Motion forOrder Requiring Judgment Debtors Gary L. Lassen, Esq.

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 180 Filed 03/02/10 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

27

28

- 2 -

and the Law Office of Gary Lassen, P.L.C. to Appear (Doc. ## 116-118), which Lassen

failed to produce at the October 16, 2009 judgment-debtors’ examinations of Lassen and his

Law Office.” (docket # 172 at 3-4)

BACKGROUND

Except as germane to Defendants’ Motion, the Court will not repeat the history

of this two-and-a-half-year litigation with which the parties are quite familiar.

After successfully defending Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, Defendants moved on March

18, 2009 for an award of attorneys’ fees on Plaintiffs’ IDEA claim under Title 20 U.S.C. §

1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III); on Plaintiffs’ ADA claim per Title 42 U.S.C. § 12205; on the

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act claim per 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b); and on the § 1983

claim per 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (docket # 93) On July 17, 2009, Judge Wake, found “Plaintiffs’

IDEA claim was objectively without foundation from the onset of litigation,” Plaintiffs’

non-IDEA claims “were groundless,” Plaintiffs filed their Complaint and continued to

litigate this action “for an improper purpose,” and granted Defendants’ fees motion. (docket

# 112 at 14, 17, 19) Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant Prescott Unified School

District and against Plaintiffs Raymond Parenteau and Jolene Parenteau and their counsel,

Gary L. Lassen and the Law Office of Gary L. Lassen, PLC, (collectively “Lassen”), jointly

and severally, for $129,951.50 in attorneys’ fees and for $11,260.21 in non-taxable costs,

plus interest at the federal rate from the date of judgment until paid. Fees were awarded

under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III), 42 U.S.C. § 12205, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b), and

42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). (docket # 113) Subsequently, Lassen’s protective order motion was

denied. Lassen has filed a Notice of Appeal without posting a supersedeas bond.

JURISDICTION

A. Notice of Appeal

“Generally enforcement of a final judgment is not stayed during the pendency

of an appeal.” FINOVA Capital Corp. v. Richard A. Arledge, Inc., 2008 WL 828504, * 3

(D.Ariz. 2008) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(a)). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d), however, “the

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 180 Filed 03/02/10 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

27

28

- 3 -

appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond,” with two exceptions not relevant in this

case. Rule 62(d), FED.R.CIV.P. “‘The posting of a bond protects the prevailing [party] from

the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and compensates him for delay in the entry of the

final judgment.’” FINOVA Capital, 2008 WL 828504 at * 3 (quoting N.L.R.B. v. Westphal,

859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988)). “‘Rule 62(d) is a purely procedural mechanism to

preserve the status quo during a stay pending appeal of a district court decision [.]’” Id.

(quoting Vacation Village, Inc. v. Clark County, Nev, 497 F.3d 902, 914 (9th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Because Lassen has not posted a supersedeas bond to date, this District Court

has jurisdiction to proceed with post-judgment proceedings to enforce its judgment despite

the fact that a Notice of Appeal has been filed. Ribbens Int’l, S.A. v. Transport Int’l Pool,

Inc., 40 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1143 (C.D.Cal. 1999) (citing United States v. York, 909 F.Supp.

4, 9 (D.D.C. 1995) (“The Court has continuing jurisdiction to protect and enforce its

judgments.”); Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, 947 F.Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y.

1996) (district court retains jurisdiction to hear contempt motion regarding order subject to

appeal)).

B. Post-judgment Discovery

Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides direction to a

judgment-creditor seeking enforcement or collection of a judgment through supplemental

proceedings. Rule 69(a) provides that “[t]he procedure on execution--and in proceedings

supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution--must accord with the procedure of

the state where the court is located . . . .” Rule 69(b)(2) authorizes discovery to aid in the

execution of a judgment:

(2) Obtaining Discovery. In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment

creditor or a successor in interest whose interest appears of record may obtain

discovery from any person--including the judgment debtor--as provided in

these rules or by the procedure of the state where the court is located.

This Magistrate Judge concludes that, as judgment-creditors, Defendants are authorized to

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 180 Filed 03/02/10 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

27

28

- 4 -

require Lassen to produce the documents they seek, conduct judgment-debtor examinations

of Lassen and his wife, and question each of them under oath concerning those documents.

C. Civil Contempt

 Generally, whether contempt is criminal or civil is determined by the purpose

of the sanction. If the sanction is intended to punish past conduct, and is imposed for a

definite amount or period without regard to the contemnor’s future conduct, it is criminal.

Conversely, if the sanction is intended to coerce the contemnor to comply with a court’s

order in the future, and the sanction is conditioned upon continued noncompliance, it is civil.

Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1481 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing,

among others, Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632 (1988)). “Civil contempt is characterized

by the court’s desire to compel obedience to a court order or to compensate the contemnor’s

adversary for the injuries which result from the noncompliance.” Falstaff Brewing Corp. v.

Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 1983). Thus, where the court imprisons or

imposes fines on the contemnor in order to coerce him or her to comply with the court’s

order, and which the contemnor can avoid or terminate by complying with the order, the

contempt sanction is civil. Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).

“A civil contemnor ‘carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket’ because civil contempt

is ‘intended to be remedial by coercing [him] to do what he had refused to do.’” Id. (quoting

Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1911)). “[F]or the court to

sanction an attorney, procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

Id. (quoting Cole v. United States Dist. Court, 366 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir. 2004).

“The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well settled: The moving

party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors

violated a specific and definite order of the court.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 305 B.R. 510, 520

(N.D.Cal. 2004) (quoting F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999)).

“The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.”

Id. Once the moving party has established a prima facie case of contempt, a contemnor may

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 180 Filed 03/02/10 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

27

28

- 5 -

avoid sanctions by demonstrating a present inability to comply with the enforcement order.

United States v. Drollinger, 80 F.3d 389, 393 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) “While inability

to comply with an order is ordinarily a complete defense, “‘[a]n exception exists when the

person charged is responsible for the inability to comply.’” Oliner, 305 B.R. at 520 (quoting

United States v. Asay, 614 F.2d 655, 660 (9th Cir. 1980)).Where the contemnor is the only

one who possesses the relevant financial information, and chooses not to disclose it, “[his]

failure to present any evidence on the record may not be charged either against the

[opposing] party or result in a holding that the district court abused its discretion in imposing

sanctions.’” Id. at 520-521 (citing Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d at 1481).

Although a district court generally must impose the minimum sanction

necessary to secure compliance, United States v. Bright, 2010 WL 669260, * 8, ___ F.3d ___

(9th Cir. February 26, 2010) (citing Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 517

(9th Cir. 1992), “the district court retains discretion to establish appropriate sanctions.” Id.

(citing Richmark Corp., 959 F.2d at 1473).

D. Contempt Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge in Non-Consent Cases

Absent full consent of all parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636(c), “[m]agistrate

judges must refer contempt proceedings stemming from out-of-court action/inaction to

district court judges.” Wilhelm v. Yott, 2009 WL 2244178, * 3 (E.D.Cal. 2009) (citing

Bingman v. Ward, 100 F.3d 653, 656-57 (9th Cir. 1996). Despite the clarification of

magistrate judges’ contempt authority with the passage of the Federal Courts Improvement

Act of 2000, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(2), a magistrate judge in a non-consent case must certify

the contempt issue to a district judge “where – the act constitutes a civil contempt[.]” 28

U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii); Bingman v. Ward, 100 F.3d at 658 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1996) (“We have

throughout this opinion limited ourselves to criminal contempt orders. We have done so

because that is what is before us. Nothing we have said should be taken to be an adumbration

of our views regarding the jurisdiction of magistrate judges in civil contempt proceedings.”).

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 180 Filed 03/02/10 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

27

28

- 6 -

DISCUSSION

Defendants have been attempting to complete or conduct judgment-debtor

examinations after review of specific identified documents to Lassen and his wife since

August 31, 2009. (docket ## 116-117) The Lassens and their counsel have done everything

lawyers can imagine to prevent or delay Defendants from obtaining the documents

Defendants are entitled to review prior to completing or conducting the Lassens’ judgmentdebtor examinations, such as, Lassen appearing at his initial judgment-debtor examination

without any documents, filing an unsuccessful Motion for Protective Order, failing to

cooperate with defense counsel, and appealing Judge Wake’s attorneys’ fees ruling without

posting a supersedeas bond. Mr. Lassen’s apparent failure to “promptly produce the records”

constitutes indirect civil contempt of Judge Wake’s January 12, 2010 order. Asay, 614 F.2d

659 (9th Cir. 1980).

In light of the notice provided in Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance

with Court’s January 11, 2010 Order, docket # 178, that attorney Gary L. Lassen has not

complied with prior court discovery orders, and Defendants having established a prima facie

case of contempt against him,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with

Court’s January 11, 2010 Order, docket # 178, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a show cause hearing before the

undersigned on Monday, March 8, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. for Gary L. Lassen to show cause

why this Court should not recommend to Judge Wake that Gary L. Lassen should be found

in indirect, civil contempt, arrested by the U.S. Marshal Service pursuant to a civil arrest

warrant, and detained until he fully complies with prior court orders including finishing his

judgement-debtor examination.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Gary L. Lassen shall be physically present

at the March 8, 2010 show cause hearing and shall bring with him all documents and

records required to be produced by him, i.e., “all items listed in Exhibit 1 attached to each

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 180 Filed 03/02/10 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

27

28

- 7 -

of Defendants’ Motion for Order Requiring Judgment Debtors Gary L. Lassen, Esq. and the

Law Office of Gary Lassen, P.L.C. to Appear (Doc. ## 116-118), which Lassen failed to

produce at the October 16, 2009 judgment-debtors’ examinations of Lassen and his Law

Office.” (docket # 172 at 3-4) Absent good cause shown, Gary L. Lassen’s failure to

physically appear at the March 8, 2010 hearing in Courtroom 302 may result in the issuance

of a civil warrant for Gary L. Lassen’s arrest by the U.S. Marshal Service.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s shall file under seal before

the March 8, 2010 hearing all personal information they may have in their possession

regarding Gary L. Lassen to assist the USMS in arresting him, e.g., his physical description,

date of birth, social security number, residential address, business address, etc.

Chamber’s staff shall promptly fax a copy of this signed order to counsel of

record.

DATED this 1st day of March, 2010.

Case 3:07-cv-08072-NVW Document 180 Filed 03/02/10 Page 7 of 7