UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1527

REDNER’S MARKETS, INC.,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOPPATOWNE G.P. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:11-cv-01864-RDB)

Submitted: March 26, 2015 Decided: April 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles M. Kerr, Kathleen M. McDonald, KERR MCDONALD, LLP, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. John J. Miravich, FOX 

ROTHSCHILD LLP, Exton, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joppatowne G.P. Limited Partnership (Joppatowne) appeals 

the district court’s order holding Joppatowne in contempt of the 

district court’s prior order granting a permanent injunction in 

favor of Redner’s Markets, Inc. (Redner’s), denying Joppatowne’s 

motions to strike and to dismiss the contempt motion, and 

awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Redner’s as a sanction for 

Joppatowne’s violation. On appeal, Joppatowne contends that the

district court erred or abused its discretion in not dismissing 

the contempt motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; in 

finding that it violated the injunction order; not holding a 

trial or evidentiary hearing; not dismissing the contempt motion 

on pleading grounds; and in considering and not striking certain 

evidentiary proffers submitted by Redner’s. We affirm.

“There can be no question that courts have inherent power 

to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil 

contempt.” Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 

(1966). “Moreover, the court that enters an injunctive order 

retains jurisdiction to enforce its order.” Alderwoods Group, 

Inc. v. Garcia, 682 F.3d 958, 970 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 (1991)).

“A court may impose sanctions for civil contempt ‘to coerce 

obedience to a court order or to compensate the complainant for 

losses sustained as a result of the contumacy.’” Cromer v. 
3

Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 821 (4th Cir. 2004) 

(quoting In re Gen. Motors Corp., 61 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 

1995)). “Civil contempt is an appropriate sanction if [the 

court] can point to an order of [the court] which set[s] forth 

in specific detail an unequivocal command which a party has 

violated.” Gen. Motors. Corp., 61 F.3d at 258 (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). The appropriate remedy for 

civil contempt is within the court’s broad discretion, and we 

have recognized that attorney’s fees may be appropriate 

compensation. Cromer, 390 F.3d at 822; see Gen. Motors Corp., 

61 F.3d at 259. 

To establish civil contempt, a movant must show by clear 

and convincing evidence: (1) the existence of a valid decree of 

which the alleged contemnor had actual or constructive 

knowledge; (2) the decree was in the movant’s favor; (3) the 

alleged contemnor by its conduct violated the terms of the 

decree and had knowledge (at least constructive) of such 

violation; and (4) the movant suffered harm as a result. JTH 

Tax, Inc. v. H&R Block E. Tax Servs., Inc., 359 F.3d 699, 705 

(4th Cir. 2004) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Willfulness is not an element of civil contempt. United States 

v. Westbrooks, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 1089006, *4 n.3 (4th Cir. 

Mar. 13, 2015); Gen. Motors Corp., 61 F.3d at 258. Moreover, a 

court is not necessarily required to hold an evidentiary hearing 
4

before granting a civil contempt motion. See In re Gen. Motors 

Corp., 110 F.3d 1103, 1015 (4th Cir. 1997). 

We review a district court’s decision on a civil contempt 

motion for abuse of discretion, the underlying legal questions 

de novo, and any factual findings for clear error. In re Under 

Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). 

“When a district court’s decision is based on an interpretation 

of its own order, our review is even more deferential because 

district courts are in the best position to interpret their own 

orders.” JTH Tax, Inc., 359 F.3d at 705; see also In re Grand 

Jury Subpoena (T-112), 597 F.3d 189, 195 (4th Cir. 2010).

With these principles in mind, we have reviewed the record 

and the parties’ briefs, and we conclude that the district court 

did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the contempt 

motion and denying Joppatowne’s motions to strike and dismiss.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Redner’s has moved for attorney’s fees and costs on appeal, and 

Joppatowne opposes the motion. To the extent that the motion is 

based on Fed. R. App. P. 38, we deny the motion. To the extent 

that Redner’s seeks additional compensation as a remedy for 

Joppatowne’s violation of the district court’s injunctive order, 

we deny the motion without prejudice to any right Redner’s may 

have to seek such compensation in the district court. We 

express no view on the propriety or merit of any such motion. 
5

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED