Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01667/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01667-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deborah D. Berger
Appellant
Stuart D. Berger
Appellant
Berger Properties of Florida, LLC

Berger Properties of Maryland, LLC

Berger Properties of Ohio, LLC

Berger Properties of Texas, LLC

Chesapeake Bank
Appellee
Law Offices of Stuart Berger, PLLC

Keith M. Northern

S & D Unlimited of Texas, LLC

S & D Unlimited, LLC

Robert B. Smith

The Unlimited Group, Inc.

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1667

CHESAPEAKE BANK,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STUART D. BERGER; DEBORAH D. BERGER,

Defendants - Appellants,

and

BERGER PROPERTIES OF OHIO, LLC; BERGER PROPERTIES OF 

FLORIDA, LLC; BERGER PROPERTIES OF TEXAS, LLC; BERGER 

PROPERTIES OF MARYLAND, LLC; S & D UNLIMITED OF TEXAS, LLC; 

S & D UNLIMITED, LLC; THE UNLIMITED GROUP, INC.; LAW OFFICES 

OF STUART BERGER, PLLC,

Defendants

KEITH M. NORTHERN; ROBERT B. SMITH

Receiver.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, 

District Judge. (4:14-cv-00066-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: November 10, 2015

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-1667 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Stuart D. Berger, Deborah D. Berger, Appellants Pro Se. 

Augustus Charles Epps, Jr., Harrison Mann Gates, Rowland Braxton 

Hill, IV, Belinda Duke Jones, Michael David Mueller, CHRISTIAN & 

BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1667 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Stuart Berger and Deborah Berger appeal from the district 

court’s order imposing contempt fines and its subsequent order 

denying in part their motion for reconsideration. The Bergers 

contend that the nature of the contempt was criminal rather than 

civil. We conclude that the contempt was civil. The imposition 

of the per diem fine was plainly designed to coerce the Bergers’ 

compliance with the court’s preliminary injunction, consistent 

with one of the primary aims of civil contempt. See Int’l 

Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827-

29 (1994).

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545

(1949). Because the contempt is civil in nature, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal. See Consol.

Coal Co. v. Local 1702, United Mineworkers of Am., 683 F.2d 827, 

830 n.3 (4th Cir. 1982) (“[A] civil contempt proceeding is in 

effect a continuance of the main action and therefore a party to 

a suit may not review upon appeal an order fining or imprisoning 

him for civil contempt except in connection with appeal from a 

final judgment of the main claim.”). Accordingly, we dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 15-1667 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-1667 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/10/2015 Pg: 4 of 4