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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION

FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

STEVEN INGERSOLL, a Washington

Resident; LYNN BASTROM, a Washington

Resident, on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE USA, a foreign

corporation; and ROYAL INDEMNITY

COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. CV05-1774 RSL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE 

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs’ application for the Court to order

defendant Royal & SunAlliance USA, Inc. (“Royal”) to show cause why it should not be held in

contempt (Dkt. # 34). Royal took five weeks to comply with the Court’s order to provide

plaintiffs with contact information for similarly situated individuals. 

II. FACTS

Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29

U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the Washington Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46 et seq. With regard

Case 2:05-cv-01774-MAT Document 66 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 The Court does question the wisdom of filing a motion at 11:35 p.m. on Thursday,

March 16, when the information has been promised to be delivered the next day, Friday, March

17. The information was delivered as promised.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION

FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 2

to the FLSA claims, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary certification as a

collective action, and ordered defendant to provide contact information for all similarly situated

individuals (Dkt. #27). That order, which was filed February 10, 2006, gave no deadline for

compliance. The parties agree that the required information was provided partially on March 9,

2006, and in full on Friday, March 17, 2006, five weeks after the Court’s order. Response at 6;

Reply at 3. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Civil Contempt

For the Court to hold defendant in civil contempt, plaintiffs must show, by clear and

convincing evidence, (1) that defendant violated the court order (2) beyond substantial

compliance, (3) not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the order. In re DualDeck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). 

The Court ordered defendant to provide specified contact information to plaintiffs. 

Setting aside the question of whether the five-week delay was justified, both parties agree that

the information has been provided.1

 “[T]he judgment for civil contempt is conditional in nature

and can be terminated if the contemnor purges himself of the contempt[.]” De Parcq v. U.S.

District Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 235 F.2d 692, 699 (8th Cir. 1956). In the present

case, defendant has now complied with the Court’s order. No further compliance may be

coerced by holding defendant in contempt or imposing sanctions. The Court need not decide

whether the five-week delay was a failure to substantially comply with the order, as any

violation has now been remedied.

B. Tolling the Statute of Limitations

In the reply brief, plaintiffs alternatively ask the Court to “factor in” the five-week delay

Case 2:05-cv-01774-MAT Document 66 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION

FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 3

when the issue of equitable tolling arises. Reply at 4. The Court declines to consider issues not

raised in the original motion. Furthermore, the Court’s “Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion Re: All

Others Similarly Situated” stated that deciding whether to equitably toll the statute of limitations

before potential class members have had a chance to “opt in” is premature. Order at 4.

IV. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s application for the Court to

order defendant Royal & SunAlliance to show cause why it should not be held in contempt (Dkt.

# 34).

DATED this 21st day of April, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01774-MAT Document 66 Filed 04/21/06 Page 3 of 3