## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 2306 T HE N ATI ONA L S PIRIT UAL A S S EMBLYOF THE B AHÁ ’ ÍSOF THE U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA U NDER T HE H ERED ITARY G UA RD IAN SHIP, I NC ., P laint if f, v. N ATI ONA L S PIRIT UAL A S S EMBLYOF THE B AHÁ ’ ÍS OF THE U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, I NC ., D ef endant-Appellant, v. F RANK LI N D. S CHLATTE R, J OEL B. M ARANGELLA, P ROVIS IONAL N ATI ONA L B AHÁ ’ Í C OUN CIL OF THE U NI T ED S TATE S, et al., R espo nd ents-A pp ellees.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:64- cv-01878

—A my J . St . Eve, Judg e.

____________ A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 20, 2009

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 23, 2010

____________2 N o. 08

- 2306 Befo re B AUER, M A NI ON, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . T hi s a pp e a li s fr o m a c i v i l

- c o nt e mpt proce edi ng a ll eging vi ol ati ons ofan inj uncti on e nter ed m or e than f our decades ag o. Th e c as e is co m pli cate d not j us t by th e pas sa g e o f ti m e but al so be ca us e i t ar i se s i n the co nt ex t o fa r el i g i o us sch i sm, a nd the i ndi vi dual s an d grou p s against w hom con tem p t san ctions are sou gh t w ere n otp ar tie s t o th e o r i g in al litig at ion . Th e u n d er lyin g s u it was a t r ade m ar ka nd pr o perty di spu te b etwee n the A m er i can Bahá’ íchurch

— f or m al l y know n as the Nati onal Spi ri tualA sse m bl y of th e B ahá’ í s o fthe U ni ted S tat es of A m er i ca, Inc. ( “N atio n alS pir i tualA sse m bl y”)

— a nd a diss i dent gr ou p in cor pora ted i n 196 4 under the l i kesou nd i ngna m e o fthe Nat i o na lS pi r i tu alAss embl y o fthe B ah á’ís of th e U n ite d St at es of A m er ica U n d er th e H er ed ita ry G u ar d ian sh ip , In c . (“H er ed ita ry G u a r d ian sh ip ”). In 1 9 6 6 a di s t r i c t
- c o ur tj ud g e e nj o i ne d the He r e di t a r y Gu a r di anshi p fro m usi ng the tr adem ar ked nam es and sym bol s o f th e N ati o na lS pi r i tu alAss embl y . W i th i n months the H er edi ta r y Gua r di an sh i p di ss o l ve d, a nd the di ss en ting f ai thful ther eafterdi sag re ed am ong them sel ves ove r i ssues o fs pi r i tu all ea der sh i p a nd do ct r i ne . Thi s di sa g r ee m en t ev en tu al l y pr o duce d a se con d s ch i sm. Ov ert i m e th e f or m erf ol l owers ofthe H er edi tar y Guardi anshi p establ i s h e d s e v e r a l n e w r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s a n d a p u b l i s h i n gfi r m, allope r a t ing in varying w ays in th e nam e of th e B ah á’í f ai th

. Fo rt y y ea rs lat er , th e N at ion al Sp iritu al A ss em b ly r e t urne d t o the di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd a s k e d fo r c o nt e mpt sa n c tio n s a ga in st s ev er al of th es e gr ou p s an d t h eir p rin c ipal s f o r al l eg edly v i o l at i ngthe t er m s o fthe 1 96 6 i nj unc ti o n.N o. 08

- 2306 3 T his requ ired p roof th at t h e all eged cont em nors

— all n on p ar tie s to t h e or igin al la w su it

— wer e i n pr i vi tywi ththe H er edi ta r y Gua r di an sh i p a nd the r efo r e bou nd b y the inj un ction. In a com p rehe ns ive opi n io n, the d istri ct cou rt r ej e c t e d th e p r i v i t y c l a i m a n d o n th i s b a s i s d e n i ed th e conte m pt m oti on . I n re achi ng thi s co ncl usi on, the j ud ge express l y decl i ned to f ollo w the approach to the pr i vi ty que st i o n ado pte d by th e F i r stCi r cui t i n G. & C
. M e r r i am Co. v. We b s t e rD i ct i onary Co. , 6 39 F
. 2d 29 (1st C i r . 1 98 0)
. The j ud ge sai d that M e r r i am was i n “si l ent t ensi on” w i th J ud ge Lea r ne d H an d’ s ve ne r ab l e o pi ni o n in A lem ite M a nu fa ctu ring Co rp. v. Staff

, 42 F.2d 83 2 (2d C ir. 1930). W e thinkthe s e t wo i mp o r t a n to pini o ns c a n b e r e c o nc i l e d. The c o m m o n- l aw r ul e ex po unde d i n A le m it e

— es se n t i ally codi fi ed i n Rule 65( d) of the Feder al Rules of C ivil Proc ed ure

— hol ds that an inj uncti on is bindi ng o n the parti es to the pr oce edi ng; thei r offi cers, age nts, and em plo yee s ( ac tingi n tha t capa ci ty ) ; a nd no npa r ti es wi thno ti ce who ar e ei th er“ l eg al l y i den ti fi ed” wi th a par tyo r who a i d a nd ab et a party’ s v i ol ati on o fthe i nj uncti on. The “l ega l i de nt i ty” compo ne nto fthi s r ul e o ft e n o pe r a t e s t o b i nd a party ’ s s uccess or s a nd as si gns, and so m eti m es othe r no npa r ti es a s wel l, b ut on l y whendo i ngs o i s co ns i st en t w i th due pro cess . A s s uch, the “l ega li denti ty” j usti fi cati on f orbi nd i ng nonp ar ti es i s li m i ted to those wh o have noti ce of the i nj uncti on and a re so cl ose l y i denti fi ed in i nter est wi th the e nj o i ne d p a r t y tha ti ti s r e a sonab l e t o c o nc l ud e th atth e i rr i g h t s a n d i n t e r e s t s we r e a dj u d i c a t e d i n the o r i g i na lpr o ce eding . In Me r r i a m the Fi rs t Cir cui t hel d that a f o r m ere m pl o y ee o fa n e nj o i ne d c o r po ratio n h ad su cha keyr ol e in the com pany and i n the und er l yi ng l i ti gat i on4 N o. 08

- 2306 that he co uld be “l ega l l y i de n tifie d” w i th the enj oi ned cor pora ti on a nd ther ef or e hel d i n conte m pt f or usi ng a new l y for m ed c om pany to ci rcum vent the inj uncti on. 63 9 F. 2d at 39- 40. Thi s i s a speci fi c appl ica tio n o fthe “l ega l id en tit y” c a t eg or y of n on p ar ty co n te m p t id en tifie d in A le m it e ; we do n o tr e a d Me r r i a m as i nconsi ste nt with J ud ge H an d’ s f o r m ul at i o n. Al tho ugh the di s t r i c tco ur tsh o ul d h a v e a pp l i e d M e r r i am , the j ud ge’ s fi nd i ngs a re tho ro ugh enough to perm i t us to r es o l ve the pr i vi ty que st i o n wi th o ut a r emand. The r es po ndent nonparty r el i gi ous gr oups and thei r pri nci pal s a re not su ffici en tly i d en tified in interest w ith th e H ered itary G u ar d ian sh ip to p er m it a co n c lu sio n th at th ey h ad th eir d a y in c o u r tb a c ki n 1 9 6 6
. We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und A . The Bahá’íSchism and t he 1966 I njuncti on The Ba há ’ íf ai tho r i g i na te d i n P er si a i n 1844 wi ththe tea chi ngs ofthe Báb, wh o f or eto l d that God would so on re veala prophet to the worl d. In 1 86 3 Bahá’ u’l l áh, o ne o f the Báb’ s fol l owers, announced thathe was thi s pro phet an d b eg ans ev er alde ca des o fsp i r i tu alt ea ch i nga nd w riting . W ith B ah á’u’ll áh ’s d eath in 18 92, spiri tu al l ead ersh i p p asse d t o hi s el des t so n, Abdu’ l

- Bah á. Abdu’ l

- Bah á die d i n 192 1, and hi s el dest gra nd son, ShoghiE ffendi, then led th e fa ith as its G u ar d ian . E ffen d i d ied u n ex p ec te d ly in 1957w ithou t h aving clearly de signat ed a suc cess or. Spi ri tualautho ri ty passed te m pora ril y to the H ands of the Cause of God, a gr oup of27Effendi- appoint ed spi ri tual l eader s who ste w ar ded the r eligi on unti l19 63. A t thatN o. 08

- 2306 5

F o r th e s a k e ofs i mp l i c i t y , w e r e fe r t o th e m a s “ b o a r d me m- 1 b er s.” poi nt the H ands tr ansfer re d suprem e a uthor ity o f th e Bahá’ íf ai th to the new l y e stabl i shed U ni ver salH ouse of Ju st ice in H aifa , I sr ae l. The N ati onalS piritualA sse m bl y, wh ose pre decesso r or gani zati on was f or m ed i n the U ni ted S tat es i n 190 9, r ec o g n i z e s a n d a c c e p t s th i s d e s c r ib e d l i n e o fs u c c e s s i o n. C ha rles M ason R e m ey d id n ot. R em ey, one of E ffen d i’ s ap p ointed H an d s, p roclaim ed i n 1 9 60 th at E ffen d i’ s spi r i tu ala utho r i tyha d pa ss ed to hi m as the S ec o nd G u ar d ian of th e F ait h . Th e o th er H an d s r ejec te d th is c l a i m, b e l i e v i ngtha tEffe nd iwa s the fi r s ta nd l a s tGu a r di an o fthe Fai th, and they exp el l ed Rem ey fro m thei r ra nks. The N ati onal Spi ri tual A sse m bl y l i kewis e vi ew s Rem ey as a s chi sm ati c fi gure . I n 1 96 2 Rem ey i ns truct ed hi s f o l l o wer s to e st ab l i shthe N ati on a lS pi r i t ua lAs s e mbl y o fthe Ba há ’ í s o fthe Uni ted S ta te s Under t he Her edi ta r y Gu a r d i a n s hi p. The H er edi tary G u ar d ian sh ip w as inc or p or at ed in N ew M exi co i n 196 4, and i t s er ved as the coo rdi nati ng bo dy f or an affi l i ati on o fi nd i vi du al s, gr oups, and l oca lspiri tual as se m bl i es i n the Uni te d S ta te s dedi ca te d t o Re m ey ’s G u ar d ian sh ip
. T h e H e r e d i t a r y G u a r d i a n s h i p it s elf w as c om pri sed o fni ne “M em ber s” w ho e sse nti al l y a cted as a board of d irectors a nd , at l east initial ly, f oll ow ed Rem ey’s decl ar ati ons and dir ecti ves. 1 I n the y ea r o f i ts i nc o r po r at i o n, th e H er edi ta r y Gua r di an sh ip co m m en c e d a c i vil a c tio n ag ain st th e N at ion al Sp iri-6 N o. 08

- 2306 t ua l As s e mbl y i n fe de r a l c o ur t i n the No r the r n Di s t r i ct o f I l l i no i s. The Her edi ta r y Guar di an sh i p cl ai m ed en ti tl ement to the m aj est i c Bahá’ íH ouse ofW or shi p i n W i l m ett e, I l l i noi s, pi cture d here :

an d a l so s ue d f o r a l lo th erpr o per ti es a nd funds i n the N atio n alS pir i tualA sse m bl y’ s pos ses si on. The N ati onal Spi ri tualA sse m bl y in turn ass er ted co unterc l ai m s a gainst th e H er edi ta r y Gua r di an sh i p f o r t r ade m ar ki nfr inge m en t an d unf ai r c o m pet i ti o n, a m o ngo th erc au se s o fa ct i o n.N o. 08

- 2306 7 I n a d ecision issued on Jun e 28, 1966 , J ud ge Rich ard A usti n sid ed with the N ati onalS pir i tualA sse m bl y. A m ong othe r f actualfi nd i ngs, J ud ge A usti n f ound that Shog hi E ffen d i w a s t h e only Gu ard ian of the B ah a’i F a i th, a n d th e r e i s n o G u a r d i a n a t th e p r e s e n t t i me and has been none si nce 1957
. The p ro c edures f ol l owed bythe H ands ofthe Cause and the succes si on ofautho ri ty fro m S hoghiEffen d ito The U ni ver sal H ouse ofJ usti ce were i n fu llacc or dance w i th th e co nt r o l l i ngdo cument s an d s ac r ed wri ti ng s a nd te ac hi ng s o fthe F ai th

. Nat’l Spir it ual Asse m bly v. Nat’l Spir it ual Asse m bly, N o. 64 C 1878, 19 66 W L 7641, at* 2 ( N
. D. I l l

. 19 66)
. The j ud ge als o fou n d th at th e N a tio n al Sp iritu al A ss em b ly “ is th e hi g he sta utho r i tyo fthe Baha ’i Fa i thi n the co nt i ne nt al U ni te d S ta te s, a nd ha s be enr ec o g ni ze d a nd au th o r i ze d a s su chb y The Uni ve r sa l H o us e o fJ us ti ce a nd i ts predeces sorsup re m e B aha’ iFa i th autho ri ti es. ” Id. at * 3. On the bas i s o fthes e a nd o therfi n d in gs o f f act, J ud ge Aust i n c o nc l ude d tha t “[ t] he r e i s o nl y o ne Ba ha ’ iF ai th, ” and that the N ati onalS pir i tualA ssem bl y i s the “hi ghest author i ty f orthe Fai th i n [ the] co nti nentalU ni ted S tat es an d is en tit led to ex c l u s i v e u se of th e m ar ks an d sy m b ols ofthe Fai th. ” Id. at * 11. The j ud ge w en t on t o hol d that the N ati onal Spi ri tual A sse m bl y own ed val i d trad em ar ks i n s ev er al s pec i f i c B a h á ’ í s y mb o l s , n a mes , a nd phrases

— in c lu d in g a tr ad em ar k in th e w or d “B ah á’í”

— all o fwh i c h the He r e di t a r y Gu a r di a ns hi p ha d infr i nged

. J udg e Aust i n the n e nt er ed th e f o l l o wi ngi nj unc ti o n:8 N o. 08

- 2306 I T I S ORDERED, ADJ UD GED AN D D ECREED th atthe counter
- defe nd ant, [ the H er edi tar y G uardi anshi p], i ts offic er s, ag en ts , se rv an ts , em p loy ee s, at to rn ey s, an d all p e r s o n s i n a c t i v e c o n c e r t o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n wi th t he m, i ncl ud i ng [ affi l i ate d l oca lgr oups] , and i nd i vi du al s, o r any o fthem , be a n d t h ey ar e her eby enj oi ned fr om usi ng i n thei r acti vi ti es the desi gnati ons “N ati onal Spi ri tualA sse m b ly ofthe Baha’i s o fthe U ni ted S tat es of A m er ica U n d er th e H er ed ita ry G u ar d ian sh ip , In c .,” “B ah a’i N ew s B u re au ,” “ B ah a’i R ou n d R ob in,” “B ah a’i, ” trad em ark rep r e s en tations of th e B ah a’i H ouse of W or shi p, the A rabi c desi gn “The Gre ate st N am e,” an d an y ot h er d es ign at ion w h ich by co lora b le i m i tat i on o r othe rwis e i s l i kel y to b e m ista ken foro r c onfused w i th [ the Nati onalS pir i tualA sse m bl y’ s] nam e o r m ar ks as i nd i cate d above o r i s l i kel y t o cre ate the e r r o ne o us i mpr e s s i o n tha t[ the He r e di t a r y Gu a r di anshi p’s] rel i gi ous acti vi ti es, p ubl i cati ons ordoctr i nes o r i g i na te wi th[ th e N ati o na lS pi r i tu alAss embl y ] , a nd fro m o ther w i se com peti ng un f ai rl y with [ the Nati onal Sp iritu al A ss em b ly] or infr in gin g [t h e N at ion al Sp iritualA sse m bl y’ s] r i ghts. Id. at* 12. Re m eya cqui es ce d in the i nj unc ti o n, a nd he f o rba de th e H er edi ta r y Guar di an sh i p an d i ts f o l l o wer s fr o m pur su i ng re consi derat i on o r appeal “r ega rdl ess ofco nsequences. ” A few m ont hs l ater, in D ecem ber 1966 , t h e H ered itary Gu ar dianshi p ceas ed al lact i vi ti es and d i sso l ved. Rem ey eve ntual l y r eco nsti tuted hi s church and changed hi s t i tl e t o th e “ Fir st G u ar d ian of th e A b h a F ait h .”N o. 08

- 2306 9 B. Th e Cu rr en t D isp u te In 2 0 0 6 th e N a t io n a l S p ir it u a l A s s e m b ly re t u r n e d to cou rt see ki ng co ntem pt sanc t i o ns ag ai nst fi ve re l i gi ous o rg ani zatio n s a n d ind ivid u als

— allrem na nt s of th e H e r e d itary Gu ar dianshi p but n onpart i es to the o ri gi nall i ti gat i on

— f or al l ege dlyvi ol ating the 19 66 i nj uncti on. The N ati onal S p i r i t u a lA s s e m b l y c o n t e n d e d th a tth e a l l e g e d c o n t e mno r s wer e i n pri vi tywi ththe Her edi ta r y Gua r di an sh i p a nd ther ef or e bound by the i nj uncti on. The nam ed re spondents can be cl ass i fi ed i nto tw o gr oups. The fi rs t inc lu des J oel M ar angel l a, Frank Schl att er, and the Pro vi si onalN ati onal Bah á’ íCo unc i lo fthe Uni te d S ta te s, Inc
. The s ec o nd includ es th e Secon d Int erna tional Ba há ’íCou nc ild/b /a B ah á’í s Underthe Pr o vi si o ns o fthe Co ve na nt( “S ec o nd I nt erna ti o na lCo unc i l ”) a nd Ba há ’ íPub l i sh er s Underthe Pro vi si ons ofthe Covenant ( “Bahá’ íPubl i sher s”)
. W e o ffer a br i efde sc r i pti o n o fe ac h.

1. T he Firs t G rou p o

f A llege d N on pa rty C on tem no rs J o e l M ar an ge lla w as th e p re sid en t o f a c ou n c il that functi oned es senti al l y a s a l i ai son between Rem ey and the Here d ita ry G u ar d ian shi p. W hi l e no t a b oa rd m em b erofth e H e r e d i t a r y G u a r d i a n s h ip , M ar an ge lla was actively i nv olved i n th e organizat ion and par ti ci pat ed i n s o m e as pec ts o fthe unde r lyi ng l i ti g at i o n, bas icall y as a tru sted assistan t to R em ey. A few ye ars aft er t h e H er ed ita ry G u ar d ian sh ip d iss olv ed , M ar an ge lla spl i t with Re m ey and f or ced a seco nd schi sm . H e pr oclaim ed him self to b e R e m ey’s ap p ointed Th ird G ua rd ia n ofth e B a h á ’í Fa it h . R e m e y d is p u t e d M a r a ng ell a’s10 N o. 08

- 2306

c laim ; he h ad alre ad y a n n ou n c ed th a tu p on h is d ea th, Do na l d Har ve y was t o s ucc ee d hi m a s th e ne xt Gu ar dian. Rem ey a n d M ar an ge l l a t hus parte d wa y s . S t a r t i ngi n 1 9 7 0 , Mar a ng e l l a o r g a ni z e d a s uc c e s s i o n o fr e l i g i o us a s s e mbl i e s de di c a t e d t o h i s Gu a r di anshi p. The first , the N ati onalBureau o fthe Orthodox B ah á’í F aith (“N a tio n al B u re au ”), w as es ta b lish ed in N ew Y or k as a n u n in c or p or at ed bo d y. In 1 97 2 M ar an ge lla m ove d the N ati onal Bu re au to N ew M exi c o a n d l ate r changed i ts nam e t o the M othe r Bahá’íCounci l, wh i ch w as i ncor pora ted un der the l aw s o fN ew M exi co i n 197 8. I n 200 0 the M othe r Bahá’íCounci lchange d i ts nam e t o the Pr ovi si onalN ati onalBahá’ íCou n c ilo fthe U ni ted States , Inc . ( “P rovisi ona l N ational C ou nc il ”). F r an k l i n S ch l at te r was a f o undi ngb o ar d m embe r a nd offi cero fthe H er edi tar y Guardi anshi p. H e a pp ea rs to ha ve bee n invo lved w ith th e H ered itary Gu ard iansh ip’s ac ti vi ti es t o a cons iderab l e deg r ee a nd was pa r t o fthe boar d t ha tv o t e d t o s ue the Na t i o na lS pi r i t ua lAs s e mbl y. W he n t h e R e me y - Ma r a n g e l l a s c h i s m o c c ur r e d, Schl att erf ol l owed M ar angel l a a nd s er ved as se cre tar y o f the Pr ovi si onalN ati onalCounci l( and its predeces sor s) f ro m 1 9 7 8 thr o ugh 2 0 0 1
. In 1 9 9 7Mar a ng e l l a a pp o i nt ed Schl att eras a H and ofthe Cause ofGod to as si st and act on h is behalf. T h e P r ovisional N ational C ou nc ilgovern s allbeli evers w i thi n the U ni ted St ate s w ho re cogni ze M ar ange lla as th e T h ird G u ar d ian , m u c h like H er ed ita ry G u ar d ian sh ip g o ve r ne d t ho se who r e c o g ni ze d Re m ey a s th e Se c on d G u ar d ian . M ar an ge lla p er so n ally ap p o in ts all Pr o vi si o na lNat i o na lCo unc i lb o ar d m embe r s an dN o. 08

- 2306 11

re vi ew s a nd approv e s a l lde ci si ons re l ating to the or gani zati on’ s a cti vi ti es and aff ai rs .
2. T he Se c on d G rou p o

f A llege d N on pa rty C on tem no rs T he Secon d Inte rna tional C ou nc ila nd B ah á’í Pu bli sh ers w ere created by D r. Le land J en sen, w ho sign ed the inc orp or at ion p ap er s fo r th e H er ed ita ry G u a r d i an sh ip and ser ve d as a boar d m em berfro m A pri l19 63 to M ay 1 9 6 4
. In 1 9 6 4 , h o we v e r, J e ns e n l o s tr e e l e c t i o n t o th e b o a r d, and he ther eafterd isas soc i ate d him sel ffro m any f or m al g o v e r na nc e r o l e i n the He r e di t a r y Gu a r di a ns hi p. Ac c o r dingly, he w as no t a board m em be r w he n th e H ered itary Gu ar dianshi p sued the NationalS pir i tualA sse m bl y, nordi d he have an y r ol e in the l i ti gat i on. Dr. J ensen con tinu ed to f oll ow Rem ey’s G ua rd ia ns hip , how ever, and w hen he a nd hi s wife m ov ed t o M i sso ula, M ontana, so m et i m e l at ertha t y ea r, the y es tabl i sh ed a sm al lc o m m uni ty ofbel i eve rs ther e. In 1 969 Dr. J ensen f or m ed the Bahá’íPubl i sher s a s a p u b lish in g t ru st an d i n c or p or at ed it inM on ta n a in 1987
. Bahá’ íPubl i sher s publ i shes boo ks and pam phlet s o n D r. J en sen ’s int erp retation of th e beli efs ofthe B ah á’í f ai th “under the Pr ovi si ons ofthe Covenant. ” Dr. J ensen als o h elp ed es ta b lish th e Se c on d Int er n at ion al C ou n c il i n 1 99 1, whi chwas i nc o r po r at ed two y ea r s lat er . The Se cond I nter nati onalCounci lhan dle s a dm i ni str ati ve re sponsibi l i ti es f orbel i eve rs i n the Bahá’íf ai th “under th e P ro vis ion s o f th e C ov e n an t” an d d es c rib es its “m ain r e s po ns ib i l i t y” as “gi v[ i ng] guidan c e t o a nyb o dy w ho r equests i t. ” J ensen die d i n 199 6.12 N o. 08

- 2306 C . Th e D istrict C ou rtR ejects the P ri vity C laim J ud g e Aus t i n ha d l o ng s i nc e di e d b y the t i me the Nati o na lS pi r i tu alA ss embl y re tu r ne d to co ur t i n 20 06 , so the co nt empt mot i o n was as si g ne d t o J udg e Am y S t. Ev e. S he author i zed l i m i ted di sco ver y a nd then hel d an exte nsi ve evi denti ar y hea ring o n the questi on o fwh etherthe al l ege d non p arty con tem nors w ere in p rivi ty w ith th e H ered itary Guar di an sh i p a nd thus b o und b y the inj unc ti o n. S he concl ud ed theywere not. In re achi ng thi s d ec i si on, J ud ge St . E ve d ec lin ed to follow th e F irs t C irc u it’s d ec isio n in M e r r i am , 63 9 F
. 2d 29, o n w hi ch the N ati on al S pir i tual A sse m bl y had substa nti al l y re l i ed i n supp or t o fi ts pri vi ty cl ai m . Buts he made det ai l ed fi ndi ng s ab o utthe r el at i o nsh ip of each of the alleged c o n t e m nors to the H ered itary Gu ar dianshi p and/orRem ey, and base d on tho se fi nd i ngs, concl ud ed that they could notbe bound. This appeal f o l l o we d.

II . A n alysis The N ati onalSpir i tualA sse m bl y argues that the di str i ct cou rt com m itted legal error by rej ectin g th e First Circu it’ s ho l di ngi n M e r r i am thata ke y office r orem plo yee o fan enj oi ned but l ate r diss ol ved co rpor ati on ca n be “l egally id en tifie d ” w ith th e c o r p or at ion an d th er efo re p er so n ally bo und b y the i nj unc ti o n. As a m ore gene r almatt er, the N ational Spiritual A ssem bly c ha ll en ges th e d istri ct cou rt’s con clusion that th e fi ve non p arty all eged cont em nors w ere no t i n pr i vi tywi ththe Her edi ta r y Gua r di an sh i p a nd ther ef or e a re notbo und bythe 1966 i nj unct i on. W e a gr ee w ith t h e fi rs t o fthes e a rgum ents. Me r r i a m i s no t, a s th eN o. 08

- 2306 13 di st r i ctc o ur t th o ug ht, a n o ve rbr o ad st at emento fthe pr i nc i pl es o n whi cha no npa r tymay be c o ns i der ed bo und by an i nj uncti on. But i t doe s no t fol l ow that the di str i ct cou rt’s no-privity conc lusion w as in error. Th e facts he re do no t su ppo r t a fi ndi ngo fpr i vi tye ve n whe n Me r r i a m is c o ns i de r e d.

A . T h e E ffec t of Pres byteri an Church Befo re pro ceedi ng, a few words abo ut the su b sta nce o f th e u n d er lyin g inj u n c tio n an d its rela tio n sh ip to th e c ivilproce du ra lquesti ons at i ssue i n thi s ca se. T he i nj uncti on w as enter ed i n 196 6, befor e the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s deci si on i n P resb yter ian Ch urch in th e U nite d State s v. M ary Elizabeth B lueH ull M em orial P resb yter ian Ch urch , 393 U
. S. 440 (1969), bu t after Ked r of

f v. St
. N i ch ol as Cat he dral of R us s i an O r thodox C hurch i n North Am er ica , 34 4 U .S. 94 (1 95 2). Kedroff c on st itu tio n aliz ed th e g en er al c om m on -law p rin c ip le anno unc ed i n Wa tson v . Jones , 80 U
. S. (13 W all

. ) 679 (1871 ), th atc i vi l au th o r i ti es may no t m ak e j udg m en ts abo ut re l i gi ous c ontr ove rs i es w hen deci ding church pro perty d isp u te s. Kedroff

, 3 4 4 U
. S
. a t1 1 6 ( T h e c h u r c h

- a u t o n o my pr i nc i pl e r ec o g ni ze d i n Wat s on “m ust no w be sai d to have federa lc on sti tuti onalpro tect i on a s a parto fthe fre e ex ercise of reli gion agains t state inte rference

. ”). Bui l di ngo n Kedroff

, th e S upr eme Co ur t he l d i n P resbyter i an Chur ch tha t“ th e F i r s tA me n d me n ts e v e r e l y c i r c u msc r ibe s th e r o l e th atc i vil c ou rt s m aypl ayi n r es o l ving ch urc h p rop erty d is p ut es.” 393 U
. S. at 449. The Cou rt ackn ow ledged that“[ c] i vi lco urts do noti nhibi t [ the] fre e14 N o. 08

- 2306

F or d ifferen t vie w s on th e so -called “h an d s-off” d octr ine in 2 d isp u te s o v er re lig io u s p ro p er ty , see R ic h a rd W . G a rn et t, A Hand s - Of

f Appro a ch t o Re l igi o us Doc t r i ne: WhatAreWe Tal k i ng A b o u t? , 84 N OTRE D AME L. R EV . 83 7 (200 9); K en t G reen aw alt, Hand s Of

f ! Ci vi l Cour t Invo l ve me nt i n Conf l i cts Ove r R el igi o us Prope rty , 98 C OLUM . L . R EV . 1843 ( 1998) ; Sam uel J

. Lev ine, R ethi nki ng t he Supre m e C ourt ’s Hands- O f f A ppro ach t o Ques t i ons of R el igious P racti ce and B el i ef , 25 F OR D HA M U RB . L .J. 8 5 (19 9 7 ). exer ci se ofr el i gi on m er ely b y o pening thei r door s t o disputes inv o l v ingchu rch proper ty. ” Id

. Bu t“ F i r s tAmen dm ent values a re pl ai nl y j eopar dize d w hen church pro perty l i ti gat i on i s m ade to tur n on the r eso l uti on byc i vi lco urts ofc o nt r o v e r s i e s o v e r r e l i g i o us do c t r i ne a nd p r a c t i c e . ” Id. The “[ Fi rs t] A m endm ent there f or e co m m ands ci vi lco urts to de ci de ch ur chpr o p er tydi spu te s wi th o utr es o l ving und er l yi ng co ntro ver si es ove r re l i gi ous doct rine. ” Id. ; see al s o S e r b i an E. O r t hodox D i oc e s e f or t he U
. S. of Am
. & Can. v. M il ivoje vich , 426 U
. S. 69 6, 71 3 ( 1976 ) ( noti ng “the ge ne ra l rul e that r el i gi ous c ontr ove rs i es ar e no t the pro per subj ect ofci vi l c ou rt i nquir y”)
. Ci vi lco urts m ay deci de church p r o p e r t y c l a i ms b a s e d o n“ n e u t r a lp r i n c i p l e s o fl a w, dev el o ped f o r us e i n a l lpr o per tydi spu te s,” b utha ve no author i ty to re sol ve re l i gi ous dis p utes. Pre s b yt e r i an 2 C hurch , 393 U
. S. at44 9. Con si der ed i n l i g hto fthe se F i r stAme n dm en t l i m i ta ti o ns on the co urt’ s a uthor i ty, cer tain aspects of the 1966 i nj unctio n are tro u b lin g. T h e d ec re e d ec lar es th at “t h er e is on ly one Baha’i Fai th, ” that S hoghiEffendi w as i ts l astGuardia n and none has com e si nce, and the N ati onalS pir i tual A ss em b ly w as its rep re se n ta tiv e a n d “h igh estautho rit y” in th e Uni te d S ta te s an d was “ en ti tl ed to e xc l us i ve us e o ftheN o. 08

- 2306 15

m ar ks and sym bol s o fthe Fai th, ” in c lu d in g the excl usi ve us e o fthe wor d “ Bah á’ í

. ” Dec l ar at i o ns ofthi s so r t pus h the bou nd aries ofthe c o u r t’s auth ority und er Kedroff an d P resbyteria n C hu rch
. I n church property di sputes ( tr adem ar k s uit s obvi ousl y quali fy) , the Fi rs t Am endm ent l i m i ts th e s p h e r e i n wh i c h c i v i l c o u r t s ma y o p e r a t e . When a dist ri ct j ud ge tak es si des i n a r el i gi ous s chi sm , purport s t o deci de m att er s o fspi ri tualsucce ssi on, and excludes di ss en te r s fr o m us i ngthe na m e, s y m bo l s, a nd mar k s o fthe f ai th( as di st i nc t fr o m the name a nd mar k s o fa c hur ch ) , the F i r s tAmen dme ntl i ne a pp e a r s t o h a v e b e e n c r o s s e d. Bu t a co ntem pt proc eedi ng i s o rdi nari l y not the pro per p lac e fo r c olla te ra l at ta c ks on th e u n d er lyin g inj u n c tio n . See P a sad ena C ityB d
. o

f E du c. v. Sp a ng ler, 427 U
. S. 42 4, 43 9- 40 ( 1976); Wal ke rv. Ci ty of Bir m i ngh am , 388 U
. S. 307 (1967); R eich v . S ea Sp rite B o a t C o ., 50 F.3d 413, 415 ( 7th C ir. 1995); s e eal s o 1 1 A C HA RLES A LA N W R I GHTE TAL ., F EDERAL P RAC T I CE AN D P ROCEDURE § 29 60 , a t 391 ( 2d ed. 1 99 5) ( “[ T] he gener alpri nci ple appears to be that obe die nce to a decr ee i s r equi re d, eve n though the i ssui ng co urt has ba sed i ts deci si on o n an inco rr ect vi ew of the l aw , unl ess ther e was no o pp o r t un i t y f o r e ffe c t i v e r e v i e w o fthe de c r e e . ” )
. We do not have the s ubstance o fthe 44- yea r- ol d decree befor e us. St i l l, r eso l vi ng the pro ceduralquesti ons at i ssue i n thi s ca se r equir es s o m e se ns i ti vi tyt o the c o ns ti tu ti o na lc o nc erns in h er en t in ch u rc h p ro p er ty cla im s. Presby te r i an Chur ch is in the backg roun d and circum scribes th e inqui ry . Appl y ing n eutr alpri vi ty pri nci ple s i s per m i ssibl e; pro nounci ng o n m at te rs of re ligiou s s u c c es sio n is n ot
.16 N o. 08

- 2306 B. St and ar d ofRevie w W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fco ntem pt sanctio n s fo r ab u se of d isc re tio n . Aut ot e ch Te ch s . LP v. Int egral Res e ar ch & D e v. Corp. , 499 F .3 d 737, 751 (7th Cir. 2007); Stotl er& Co
. v. Able, 870 F.2d 115 8 (7th C ir. 1989). A c o u rt abuses i t s di s c r e t i o n whe n i tb a s e s i t s de c i s i o n o n a l e g al er ro r or on c lea rly er ro n eo u s fa c tu al fin d in gs . U nited Sta tes v. Si l va , 140 F.3d 10 9 8 , 1 1 0 1 n .4 (7t h C ir. 19 98 ); In reL & S Indus. , In c. , 98 9 F
. 2d 929, 93 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( si m i l ar sta nd ar d ofr evi ew f ordi st ric t court ’ s dete rm i nati on o f ex i s t e n c e o f p riv ity ); s e eCoot e r& Ge l l v. Har t m arx Corp. , 49 6 U. S
. 3 84, 4 01 ( 19 90 ) ( not i ngabus e- o f

- di sc r et i o n s ta ndard ofr evi ew i s e quiva l ent t o cl ear - er ro r sta nd ar d of review w he n review ing a d istri ct cou rt’s f actu al find ings). Factua lfi ndi ng s ar e no t cl ea r l y e r r o ne o us unl es s “ ’ th e r e v i e wi n g c o u r t o n th e e n t i r e e v i d e n c e i s l e ft wi th t he defini te and fi rm co nvi cti on that a m i sta ke has be en com m i tte d.’ ” A nders on v. C ity of B es se m erCity, 47 0 U.S
. 56 4, 573 ( 1985 ) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. U .S. Gyps um Co. , 33 3 U
. S. 364, 394-95 (1948 ))
. A s the pro ponent of t he co ntem pt m oti on, the N ati onal S pi r i tu alAss embl y ha d the f o l l o wi ngb ur den : To pr ev ai lo n a r eque stf o r a c o nt empt fi ndi ng, the m o vingpa r tym us t es tabl i shb y c l ea r a nd c o nv i nc i ng ev i den ce th at ( 1) a co ur t o r ders et s f o r tha n un ambi g uous com m and; ( 2) the al l ege d contem norvi ol ate d that co m m an d; ( 3) th e vi o l at i o n was si g ni fi ca nt, m eani ng th e a l l ege d contem nordi d not s ubstanti al l y c om p ly w i th the o rder ; and ( 4) the al l ege d c onte m nor f ai l ed to m ake a re aso nabl e a nd di l i gent eff or t t o com ply

.N o. 08

- 2306 17 S.E.C. v. Hyatt, 6 21 F. 3d 68 7, 69 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. In a ddi ti o n, the Nati onalS pir i tualA sse m bl y had the bur den ofes tabl i shi ng tha t the al l ege d conte m nor s, n onpart i es to the 1 966 inj u n c tio n, are n on et h ele ss bo u n d by it. See Lev in v . Tiber Hol di ng Corp
. , 27 7 F
. 3d 24 3, 2 50

- 51 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 2) ( apply i ng th e clear-and -conv incing sta n d ard to the q ue stion of a non p arty’s li abili ty for con tem p t).

C. I njuncti ons and N onpart i es This appeal rai ses the questi on ofthe properr each ofan i nj uncti on

— m ore s peci fi cal l y, the extent to w hi ch an i nj uncti on bi nd s perso ns w ho ar e not parti es to the a cti on i n w hi ch i t i s e nter ed. “ ’ I t i s a pri nci ple o fge nera lappli cati on in A ngl o- A m er i can j uri sprudence t h at one i s no t bound by a j ud gm ent i n p e rs o n a m i n a l i ti g at i o n in whi chhe i s no t desi gnate d as a party o r to w hi ch he has notbee n m ade a partybyse rv i ce o fpro cess . ’ ” Taylor v. Sturgell, 55 3 U
. S. 88 0, 88 4 ( 2008 ) ( quoti ng Ha ns b e r ry v . L ee, 31 1 U.S
. 32 , 40 (19 40 )); se e also R ichards v. Jef fe rs on C ounty, 517 U
. S. 79 3, 79 8 (1 99 6); M ar t i n v . Wi l ks , 49 0 U .S. 75 5, 76 1 (1 98 9); Z eni th R adio C orp. v. Ha z el ti ne R es earch, Inc. , 39 5 U.S
. 10 0, 11 0 (19 69 ). Th is p rin c ip le is b as ed on th e “ ’d ee p -ro ot ed h ist or ic tr ad itio n th at ev er yo n e s h ou ld h av e h is ow n d ay in cour t. ’ ” Taylo r, 55 3 U
. S. at89 2- 93 ( quoti ng Ric har ds , 517 U .S . a t 7 98 ). I t lim its th e e x te n t t o w h ich a j u d gm en t is giv en p re c lu siv e e ffec t in a su b se q u en t s u it, see id. at 891- 95, and ( m or e perti nent her e) the extent to w hi ch an i nj uncti on m ay be e nfo rce d against no nparti es, s e eZenith R adio , 39 5 U .S. at 1 10 -11 ; s e eals o LakeShoreA s s e tM gm t
. Lt d. v. C om m odity Futures Trading Co m m ’n , 511 F. 3d 762, 76 6- 67 (7th C ir. 2007).18 N o. 08

- 2306

W e quote f rom the curre nt vers ion ofRu le 65( d)( 2) , w hich w as 3 am ended i n 2 0 0 7
. Th e a m e nd e d r ul e c on t a i ns “ no s ub s t a nt i ve d iffer en ce ” fro m its p re d ec es so r. LakeShor e A ss et M gm t
. Ltd. v. C om m odity F u tures Trading C om m ’n , 5 1 1 F. 3d 762, 767 ( 7th Cir

. 2 0 0 7 ). There are so m e w ell-e st ab lish ed ex c ep tio n s to the g ener al p r in c ip le th at an inju n c tio n bin d s o n ly th e p ar tie s. R u le 65( d) o fthe Feder alR u les ofCi vi lPro cedure, wh i ch gov er ns i nj uncti ons and tem pora ryr est rai ni ng o rder s, codi fi es both the gener alpri nci ple and i ts excepti ons: (2) P e rso ns B ou nd . T h e o r d e rb i n d s o n l y t h e f o l l o wi ng wh o re cei ve actualnot i ce o fi t byp er sonalse rv i ce oro ther w i se: (A ) the par ti es; (B) the parti es’ offi cer s, ag ents, se rv ants, em plo yee s, a nd a tt o r ne y s; a nd (C) othe r perso ns wh o ar e in acti ve concer t o r p ar tic i p at ion w ith an yo n e d es c rib ed in R u le 65(d )( 2)(A ) or ( B ). F ED . R. C IV . P. 65(d )( 2). 3 By i ts te r m s, Rul e 65 ( d) make s i nj unc ti o ns b i ndi ngo n the par ti es t o the unde r l y i nga ct i o n andthei r “offi cer s, ag ents, se rv an ts , em p loy ee s, an d at to r n e ys ,” ev en if th os e “ office r s, a g en ts , ” et c. , a r e no t na m ed as pa r ti es t o the l i ti g at i o n. F ED . R. C IV . P. 65( d)( 2) ( B). Thi s i s ba sed o n t h e id ea that “[ a] n or der i ssued to a co rpor ati on i s i denti calto an o rder i ssued to i ts offi cer s, f ori ncor pore alabs tr acti ons act thro u gh ag en ts. ” R ei ch , 50 F.3d at41 7; s e eal s o Wi l s on v.N o. 08

- 2306 19 U nited Sta tes , 22 1 U. S
. 36 1, 37 6 ( 19 11 ) ( “A co m m an d t o the cor p o r a t ion i s in effect a com m an d to those w ho are offici all y resp ons ible for th e con d uc t of its affai rs.”) ; A ddi t i veCo n t r ol s & M e as u r e men tS ys . , In c . v . F l owd at a, In c. , 15 4 F .3d 13 45 , 135 1 (F ed

. C ir. 19 98 ) (“R u le 65(d ) sp ec ifica lly na m es ‘offi cers’ of a d efe n d a n t a s am ong those w ho are bound by a n i nj uncti on, and ther e i s a subst anti albo dy of case law i n supp or t ofthatpro posi ti on. ”)
. A s s uch, o ffi cer s, em plo ye e s , a nd o the r a g e nt s o fa n e nj o i ne d p a r t y must obe y the i nj uncti on

— eve n though they ar e not n am ed parti es

— w h en t h ey a c t in th eir offic ial c ap ac itie s. See N ew York ex re l. V

acco v. O peration Resc ue Nat’l, 80 F. 3d 64, 70 ( 2d Cir
. 19 96) ( “A n i nj uncti on i ssued ag ai nst a co rpor ati on o r as so ci at i o n b i nds the a g en ts o ftha t o r gan i za ti o n t o the extent they ar e acting on behal f of the or gani zati on . . . . General l y, per sons w h o ceas e t o act i n one ofthe desi gn at ed ca p ac itie s a r e n o lon ge r b ou n d by th e d ec re e.” (citation om itted ))
. This aspect ofthe rul e i s no t i m pli cate d i n thi s ca se. A l though the i nd i vi du aldefendants m i ght ha ve quali fi ed as “o ffice rs ” o r “a ge n ts ” o f th e H er ed ita ry G u ar d ian sh ip i n J une of19 66 w hen the i nj uncti on wa s en tered, after th e organizat ion w a s d is solved i n D ecem ber of that year, they obvi ousl y no l onge r hel d that s tatus. They c annot, i n oth er w or ds, acti n thei r offi ci alcapaci ti es to cause th e H er edi ta r y Gua r di an sh i p t o v i o l at e th e i nj unc ti o n. A s t o othe r nonparti es w ho m i ght proper l y be bound by an inju n c tio n, t h e Su p re m e C ou rth as e x p lain ed t h at R u le 65 (d )(2) is20 N o. 08

- 2306 deri ved fro m the com m onl aw doctr i ne thata decree o f i nj uncti on noto nl y b i nd s the par ti es defe nd ant but al so thos e i denti fi ed w i th the m in inter est, i n “pri vi ty” with th em , rep re se n te d by th em or s u bj ec t t o t h e i r co n tr ol. I n ess ence i t i s that defe nd ants m ay not null i fy a decr ee byc ar r y i ngo utpr o hibi te d a ct s th r o ug h a iders a nd abet tor s, al though they w er e not parti es to the o ri gi nal proce edi ng. Reg a l Kn i t we a rCo
. v . N. L
. R. B. , 32 4 U .S. 9, 14 (19 45 ). B ro ad ly spe ak i ng, b o ththe r ul e an d the c o m m o n- l aw do ct r i ne c on te m p lat e t w o c at eg or ies of n on p ar tie s p ot en tia lly b ou n d b y a n inju n c tio n . On e in c lu d es n on p ar tie s a c tin g in concer t with a b ound p ar ty;m an y c ase s ho l d that a non pa r t y may b e he l d i n c o nt e mpt i f he a i ds o r ab e t s an enj oin ed p ar ty in v iola tin g a n inju n c t i o n . Id. ; C hase Nat’l B ankv. Ci ty of N orwa lk, O hio , 291 U
. S. 431, 436 (1934 ); S
. E
. C
. v . Ho ma , 514 F. 3d 661, 673-77 ( 7th Cir. 2008); Ro ckw el l G raphic Sys
. , Inc. v. D E V Indus. , Inc. , 91 F. 3d 914, 91 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96)
. Thi s princi ple is co difi ed i n subsec ti on (2)( C ) of the rule, w hich provid es th at non p arties “w ho are in active con cert or pa rt ic ip a t ion w ith” a bou nd pa rty are th emse l ve s bou nd a nd may b e l i ab l e f o r a i di nga nd a b et tin g t h e p ar ty ’s c on te m p t. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 65( d)( 2) ( C). T hi s categ or y ofnonparty c onte m pt l i abi l i ty i s a l so not at i ssue here

. T h e o th er ca te go ry is ca p tu re d u n d er th e g en er al ru b ric of“pri vi ty. ” I t i s g ener al l y accepted that an i nj uncti on m ay be e nfo rce d against a nonparty in “pri vi ty” with a n enj oin ed p ar ty
. E.g
. , Go l d e n St a t eBo t t l i n gCo
. v . N. L
. R. B. , 41 4 U
. S. 168, 179-80 (1973 ); Rega l Kni t wear, 32 4 U.S
. at14 ;N o. 08

- 2306 21 R o ck w ell G rap hic Sy s. , 9 1 F
. 3 d a t 9 1 9
. Th i s c o nc e pt c a n be ha r d t o pi n do wn; the us e o fthe t er m “ pr i vi ty ” ha s ex pand ed ove r ti m e. Se eTayl or, 553 U
. S. at 894 n.8 (“Th e term
‘ pri vi ty’
. . . has al so com e t o be use d m or e bro adly, as a w ay to ex p re ss t h e c on c lu sio n th at n on p ar ty p re c lu sio n is ap p ro p ria te on an y g ro u n d .”); Richar ds , 51 7 U.S
. at79 8 ( “ [ T ] h e t e r m ‘ p r i v i t y ’ i s n o w u s e d t o d e s c r ib e v ar i o us r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t we e n l i t i g a n t s th a tw o u l d n o th a v e c o me w ith inth e t ra d itio n al d efin itio n of th at te rm .” ) . In th is conte xt, “pri vi ty” has com e to be “ see n as a descr i pti ve ter m f ordesi gnating tho se w i th a suffi ci entl y c l ose i denti ty of in te re st s” to j u st ify ap p lica tio n of no n p ar t y c l aim p re c lu sio n, Ticev. Am
. Airl ine s, Inc. , 162 F. 3d 966, 97 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed) , o r the en for c em en t o f an inj u n c tio n a ga in st a n on p ar ty , s e eRegal Kni t wear, 32 4 U.S
. at14
. The co n cept o fpri vi ty, however

—both i n precl usi on doctr i ne andi n the l aw o finj unc ti o ns

— is u ltim at ely bounded bydue p r o c e s s , wh i ch st ar ts fro m a “pres um pti on th a te a c h p e r s o n h a s a r i g h tt o h e r d a y i n c o u r t
. ” Ma r t i n H. R ed ish & W illiam J. K at t, T ay lor v. St u rg ell, Pr oc e dural D ue Proc e s s , an d theD ay- i n- Cour tIde al : Re s ol vi ng t heVi r t ual R ep r e s e n t a t i o n Di l e mma , 84 N OTRE D AME L. R EV . 18 77, 1881 (2 009); s e eal s o Ri ch ar ds , 517 U
. S. at 798 (“[T]here ar e cl ea rly co nsti tuti onall i m i ts on the ‘ pri vi ty’ exce pti on

. . . . ”); R egal Kni t wear, 324 U
. S. at 13 (“Th e cou rts, ne verthel ess , m ay not gr ant an enf or cem ent or der o r i nj uncti on so b r o ad as t o make puni sh ab le th e co nduc t o fpe r so ns w ho acte d ind ependentl y and whose r i ghts have not been ad j u d ge d ac c or d in g t o law .”); Tice, 16 2 F
. 3d at9 71 ( ca ut i o ni ng ag ai nst t oo r el axed an app ro ach to pri vi ty because22 N o. 08

- 2306 “se ri ous due pro cess pro bl em s would a rise i fthe ear l i er non p arty w ere barred from her ow n d ay in cou rt”). Both prec l usi on doct rine and R ule 65( d)( 2) are concerned w i th the sco pe and effect ofa j ud gm ent, and “[i ] n no a re a of p ro c e d u r e h a s th i s [o w n - d a y - i n - c o u r t ] id e al t ra d itio n ally p lay ed a m or e im p or ta n t ro le th an t h e field o f j u d gm en ts .” R ed ish & K at t, sup ra , at 1877. W hen p ri vi ty i s invoke d as a basi s forbi nd i ng a nonpartyt o an i nj uncti on, i t i s “ re str i c t e d t o p e r s o ns s o i de nt i fi e d in i nt e r e s twi th tho se na m ed i n the de cr ee tha t i t woul d b e r ea so nabl e to c o ncl ud e that thei r ri ghts and inter est s have been re prese nted an d ad j u d ica te d i n t h e o rig in al inj u n c tio n p ro c ee d in g.” 1 1 A C HA RLES A LA N W R I GHTE TAL ., F EDERAL P RACT I CE AN D P ROCEDURE § 2956 , at 340-41 (2d ed

. 1995). The case l aw sugg est s that when i t co m es to i nj uncti ons, the concept of nonparty pri vi ty has at l eas t tw o subcate gor i es . One l i ne of cas es ho l ds th ata n inj unc ti o n wi l lb i nd non p arty succes sor s in i nter estto an e nj oi ned party

. E. g. , Gold e n S t at eBot t l i ng Co. , 414 U .S. 16 8; Reg al Kni t wear, 324 U .S. at 1 4-1 5; Walli ng v. Jam es V. Reu te r, Inc. , 321 U
. S. 67 1 (1 94 4); R ei ch , 5 0 F.3d 41 3; Pant he rPum ps & Equ ip. Co. v. Hydrocraft, Inc. , 566 F.2d 8 (7t h C ir. 19 77 ); s e eal s o Operati on R es cue Nat’l, 8 0 F
. 3 d a t7 0 ( “ [ A p a r t y ma y n o t ] c i r c u mvent a va l i d courto rderm er ely by m aking super fi ci al changes in the org ani zati on’ s nam e o r f or m . . . . ”)
. A nother l i ne o fcas es hol ds that a no npartym ay be b ound by an i nj un c t i o n i fthe no np a r t y i s o the r wi s e “ l e g a l l y i de nt i fi e d” w ith th e e nj oin ed p ar ty
. Se e, e . g. , M e r r i am , 63 9 F
. 2d at 37- 40; se e also Fl ow data , 15 4 F
. 3d at 1352 ( usi ng “ leg al i denti fi cati on” tes t a nd f avo rabl y c i ti ng M e r r i am ).N o. 08

- 2306 23 T he m ain d ispu te in this case c e n t ers on th e Fir st C ircui t’ s dec i si o n in M e r r i am , and speci fi cal l y whether its ar tic u lat ion of th e “ leg al id en tit y” ba sis for p riv ity is do ct r i na l l y s o und. The que st i o n ari se s he r e be ca us e th e dist ri ct c ourttho ught Me r r i a m was i nc o ns i st en t wi th the S ec o nd Ci r cui t’ s f amous a r ti cu l at i o n in A lem ite o fthe pr i n c i p l e s o n w h i c h n o n p a r t i e s ma y b e h e l d i n c o nt e mpt an d the related l im its on the cou rt’s ad ju d ic a tive pow er. I n A l e m i te th e un d erlyi ng suit involved f ou r brothe rs al l eg ed to b e par tn er s i n a bus i ne ss tha t was i nfr i ng i ngthe pl a i nt i ff’ s p a t e nt
. T wo o fthe b r o the r s we r e n e v e r s e r v e d, and the ca se proce eded to tr i al aga i nst the re m ai ni ng two, J o hn an d J o se ph S ta ff

. J o se ph was di smi ss ed as a defen dan t afterJ ohn te sti fi ed that the b usi ness bel onge d sol el y t o hi m a nd he mer ely e m p loye d J o se ph a s a sa l es m an . The cour t then enj oi ned J ohn St aff and “ hi s a gents , em plo yee s, assoc iates and confed erates” from infri ng ing th e plaintiff’s pat e nt
. S o met i me l a t e r J o s e phl e fth i s b r o the r ’ s e mp l oy, “se t up i n busi ness f orhi m sel f, and w as prove d t o have i nfr i nged the patent. ” A le m it e, 42 F.2d at 832. Th e plaintiff i ni ti at ed co nt empt pr o ce eding s ag ains t J o se ph. Tho ug h h e w as no lo ngerJohn’ s em plo yee , and John him sel fwas not i nvol ved i n J ose ph’s i nfr i ngem ent of the patent, the dist ri ct c o ur tf o un d J o s e ph

— a no npartyto the i nj uncti on a cti on

— inco n te m p t. Id. The S e c o nd Ci r c ui tr e v e r s e d. In a de c i s i o n b y J ud ge H and, the c ourtexpl ai ned the backg ro und leg alpri nci ple s as f ol l ows: [ N ] o c o ur t ca n m ak e a dec r ee whi chwi l lb i nd a ny o ne but a party ; a cour t of equi ty i s as m uch so l i m i ted as a24 N o. 08

- 2306

cour t o fl aw ; i t ca nnot l aw fully e nj oin the w or l d at lar ge , no m at te r h ow br oa d ly it w or d s it s d ec re e. If it as su m es t o do s o , the de cr ee i s pr o tanto b r utum fulm en, and the perso ns enj oi ned are fre e t o i gnor e i t. I t is not vested w ith sovereign p o w ers to de clare conduct unla w ful; i ts j uri sd icti on i s l i m i ted to tho se over w hom it gets person al servi ce, and w ho th erefore can h ave thei r day i n cour t. Thus, the onl y o ccasi on w hen a perso n not a par ty m ay b e p unis hed, i s when he ha s he l ped to b r i ngabo ut, no t m er ely w ha t the d ecree h as forbidd en, becau se it m ay ha ve gon e too far, b u t w h at it h as p ow er to fo rb id , a n a c t of a p ar ty . Th is m ea ns tha t th e r es po nde ntmuste i th erabe t th e defen d a n t, o r mu s tb e l e g a l l y i d e n t i fi e d w i th h i m. Id. a t 8 3 2

- 3 3
. J o s e p h S t a ff wa s n o t h i ms e l f a p a r t y t o t he i nj unc ti o n a nd w as no l o ng ere m pl o y ed byJ o hn, the enj oi ned party ; he ha d n ot a id ed o r abet ted a vi ol ati on o f th e i nj un ctio n b y J o hn, the b o und pa r ty
. Acco r di ng l y, the cour t hel d that J ose ph c ou ld not b e found in conte m pt. Id. at8 33
. “ The Di stri ctCo ur t, ” th e S ec o nd Ci r cui t ex pla i ned, “had no m or e power in the cas e at b arto punish the r espondent than a thi rd party who had neverhear d of the s uit
. ” Id. I n M e r r i am the F i r s tCi rcui t inv o k e d A lem ite i n another case i nv o l v i ngt wo b r o the r s , b utwi th a di ffe r e ntr e s ul t: Me r r i a m h eld th at a “ke y em p loy ee ” of a cor p or at ion co u ld be per sonal l y b ound by an i nj uncti on aga i nst the co rpor ati on eve n after he ceas ed bei ng an age nt ofth e c om pany. 639 F. 2d at 39. Bro ther s J ohn and Geor ge H osk i ns o pened a small r efer en ce -bo o kmar k et i ngc o m pan y kno wn as theN o. 08

- 2306 25 W eb st er D ict ion ar y C om p an y in 19 75 ; Joh n w as its p re sident and s ol e shar ehol der, and Geo rg e w as hi s gen er al sal es m anage r. A t i ts peak the co m pany had si x em plo yee s; i twa s n o ti n b us i ne s s ve r y l o ng . The bi gdi c t i o na r y fi r m G. & C
. Me r r i a m C o . o wn e d th e r i g ht s t o th e we l l

- k n o wn “W eb ste r’ s” l i ne o fdi cti onar i es, and i n l ate 19 75 i t s ued W eb st erDi ct i o na r y f o r t r ade m ar ki nfr i ng ement, s ee k i ng dam age s and inj uncti ve re l i ef

. I n M ar ch 197 7 W ebster Dict i onar y a dvised the cour t that i t was i nsol vent, was disc harg i ng i ts att or neys, and w oul d conse nt to e ntryo fan “ap p rop riate j ud gm en t” agains t it. In Oc tober of that yea r, the di str i ct c ourt held thatW ebst erDic ti onar y had def au l te d a nd e nt er ed a per m an en t i nj unc ti o n ag ains t i t an d J ohn H osk i ns bar ring the m fro m usi ng v ari ous M er ri am tr adenam es a nd m ar ks. W ebst erDic ti onar y went out of busi ness and Jo hn H oski ns exi ted the r efer ence-boo k m ar ket

. Georg e Hoski ns di d not. In 1 976, st i l lem plo yed by W eb sterDi cti o na ry, G eorge incorp orated W ebst er Pu bli shi ng Com pany and two re l ate d cor pora ti ons, the busi ness of w hic h bore “a st ri ki ng r ese m bl ance t o that ofW ebst er Dict i onar y Com pany. ” Id. at 34. A fter W ebst er Diction ary ceas ed oper ati ons, G eorge H osk i ns, thr ough W ebst er Pub l i sh i ng, c o nt i nue d to use M er r i am’ s tr ade na m es a nd mar k s i n muc h the s a me wa y a s Web s t e r Di c t i onar y h a d. The distr i ct c ourthel d that Geo rg e Hoski ns and W ebst er Publi shi ng w er e bound b y the i nj uncti on a gainst W ebst er Dict i onar y a nd f ound them i n conte m pt. The Fi r stCi r cui t r ev er se d b as ed o n a l ac ko fc l ar i tyi n the dist ri ct cour t’ s or der and r em anded w i th a d etai l ed26 N o. 08

- 2306

ex pl an at i o n o fthe po ssible l eg alg r o unds fo r ho l di ng Geo r g e H o sk i ns a nd W eb st erPub l i sh i ngb o und b y the i nj unc ti o n tho ug h the y w er e no t par ti es t o the unde r l y i ng li tigation. T he cou rt began w ith a d is c us sion of A le m it e, su m m ar i zingthe ho l ding in thi s way : “ To ho l d a no nparty b ou nd byan inj uncti on i t i s thus ess enti alto pro ve ei th ertha t th e no npa r ty par ti ci pat ed i n the c o ntum ac i o us ac t o fa pa rty or th atthe no npa r tywas s ubj ec t to the inj u n c tio n be c au se [h e is ] lega lly id en tifie d w ith a p ar ty .” Id. at35 . B e c a u se G eo rg e H os kin s h ad n otp ar tic ip at ed in ana cto fc o nt empt b y J o hn, the c o ur t r ecogni ze d tha t he c ou ld n otbe h eld in c on te m p t a s a n aid er an d ab et to r. Id. The c o ur t no te d tha t an enj o i ne d pa r ty ’ s “s ucc es so r s an d ass i gns” m i ght b e “ l ega l l y i denti fi ed” wi th the bo und party and thus obl i gat ed to o bey the inj uncti on; thi s j usti fi cati on f ornonparty c onte m p t w as al so unavai l abl e be cause Geo r g e H o sk i ns a nd W eb st erPub l i sh i ngwer e no t th e su c c es so rs or as sig n s o f Joh n or W eb st er D ict ion ar y. In t h is re gar d, the c ourto bser ved that“[i ] t is noteno ugh to pro ve th atthe fi r ste nt i tywento uto fe xi st en ce a nd .

. . th e se co nd en t i t y e nt e r e d int o the e nj o i ne d ty pe o fb us i ne s s a c t i vi ty, knowing about the inj uncti on but w i thout havi ng ac quir ed th e b u sin es s, or a rele va n t p ar t o f it, from th e firs t e n tit y.” Id. at 36. But the cour t went on to concl ud e that a per son coul d be “l eg al l y i den ti fi ed” w i than enj o i ne d co r po r at i o n and thus perso nal l y b ound by the i nj uncti on i fhe was a “ke y empl o y ee ” o fthe c o r po r at i o n, ha d a s i g ni fi ca ntr o l e i n the unde r l y i ngliti g at i o n, a nd was c l o se l y i den ti fi ed wi ththe b ou n d p ar ty in o th er rele va n t re sp ec ts
. Id. at 37. I m p or-N o. 08

- 2306 27 tantl y, the cour t e xplained that the no nparty ’ s s tatus as a “k ey em p loy ee ” o f th e e nj oin ed co rp or at ion is n otsu f fici en t byi ts el ft o pe r so na l l y b i nd hi m t o the i nj unc ti o n: [ T]hatGeor ge H osk i ns w as a “ keyem plo yee ” o f W eb st er D ict i o n a r y C om p an y a s w ell as “t h e p rin c ipal ” o f[ W ebst erPubl i shi ng]
. . . i s in su ffi ci ent t o supp o r tthe di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c o nc l us i o n tha tGe or ge H osk i ns was b ou n d bythe i nj uncti on. The ce ntra l re as o n tha to ne wh o i s n o ta p a r t y t o the a c ti on i n whi ch t he i nj unc ti o n was i ss ue d c anno t be b o und by i t i s that he has no t had hi s day in c ou rt with re spect to the valid i ty ofthe i nj uncti on. Cf. A l em i te, sup ra . A b se n t a n op p or tu n ity to co n te st liab ility , his k no wl edg e o f th e i nj unc ti o n i s no t su ffi ci en t to b i nd h im as an ind ivid u al, i d. , as dist i ngui shed fro m pro hibiting hi m fro m act i ng i n the f orbi dd en way on beh alf ofthe enj oi ned party

. T hus, the re l evanti nquir y i s no t m er el y whether ( i n additi on t o havi ng know l ed ge o f the i nj uncti on) G eor ge H osk i ns was a “ keyem plo yee ” ofW ebst erDic ti onar y Com pany but whether he had su c ha ke y ro le inth e c or p or at ion ’s p ar tic ip at ion in th e inj u n c tio n p ro c ee d in gs th at it ca n b e fa irly s aid th athe ha s ha d hi s dayi n cour t i n r el at i o n t o the va l i di tyo fthe i nj unc ti o n. Id. The co ur t i ss ue d th es e r emand i ns truct i o ns to the dist ri ct c ourt : T h e e vid en c e ra ise s a fac t is su e a s t o w h et h er th is is a c a s e o fthe s a me pe r s o n c o nt i nu i ngt o do ess entiall y the sa m e thi ng with the s am e hi gh degr ee ofprac ti calco ntro l, di scr eti on an d res ponsibi l i ty,28 N o. 08

- 2306

U n d er sto o d in th is w a y , Me r r i a m cor re s ponds t o o ne ofthe 4 c at eg or i es ofno npar t y pre c l us i on l i s t ed i n Tayl or, whi c h m i ght b e d es cr ib ed in sh o rt h a n d a s “ co n tr o l p er so n ” p re cl u sio n . Tayl or v . S tu rg ell , 55 3 U. S. 88 0, 89 5 ( 20 08 ) ( “[ A] no npar t y i s bound by a j ud gm ent ifs he as sum ed c ontrol over the li ti gati on in wh ic h that ju d g m en t w a s re n d er ed .” (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed )); seeal so M on tana v
. U n ite d States , 44 0 U .S. 1 4 7, 15 3 -5 4 (19 7 9 ); Schnel l v. Pet erEckr i ch & Sons, Inc. , 3 6 5 U .S . 26 0 , 26 2 n .4 (1 9 6 1 ); Souf f ro nt v. La Com pagni e des S ucre ries de P or t o Ri co , 217 U.S
. 475, 4 8 6 -8 7(19 1 0 ). be f o r e an d a fte r th e i nj unc ti o n, wi th k no wl edg e o fthe i nj uncti on, and afterpart i ci pati ng i n the enj oi ned fi rm ’ s co rpor ate d eci si onm aking reg ar ding i ts posi ti on i n the i nj uncti on pro ceedi ngs. I fi t i s found that Geor ge H oskins wasl eg al lyi den ti fi ed with W ebst er Diction ary Com pany i n thi s w ay, then he is bound bythe i nj unctio n an d th e a p p ella n t c o rp or at ion s fo u n d ed by h im ar e a l so subj ect to i t. Id. at38
. T he up sh ot of M e r r i am i s tha t a key em p loyee, officer, dir ecto r, shar ehol der, o r othe r centr alfi gure i n an enj o i ne d c o r po r at i o n c anb e per so na l l y b o und b y the inj u n c tio n ev en aft er th e c om p an y h as d iss olv ed , pro vid ed he had a contr ol l i ng r ol e in the i nj uncti on pro ceedings an d i s o th er wi se s o “ cl o se l y i den ti fi ed ” wi ththe enj oined co rpor ati on that i t m ay re aso nabl y b e s ai d that he h a d h i s da y i n c o urt w he n the i nj un c t i o n wa s i s s ue d. 4 Th e s e i mpo r t a ntqua l i fi e r s k e e p M e r r i am withi n the l i m i ts of d u e p ro c es s.N o. 08

- 2306 29 I n thi s c a s e , the di s t r i c tc o ur tr ej e c t e d M e r r i am ’ s ho l di ng f o r e ss en ti al l y t wo r ea so ns . F i r st, the j udg e thought M e r r i am w as i n “si l ent tensi on” w i th J ud ge H and’s opi ni on i n A le m it e . S eco nd , she concl ud ed that M e r r i am co nfl i cted wi ththe S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in Zen i t h R adi o C orp. v. Hazelti ne R es earch, Inc. , 395 U
. S. 10 0 ( 1969 )
. W e di sag re e o n both counts. Tho ug h A le m it ea nd M e r r i am r ea ch ed ve r y di ffer en t re sul ts, the tw o opi ni ons can be re conci l ed. For st ar ter s, A lem ite speci fi cal l y no ted thata nonpartyto an inj uncti on pr o ce edingmay be he l d i n c o nt empt fo r v i o l at i ngthe i nj uncti on wh e n then o np a r ty“ e i the rabe t[ s] the defe nd ant, or [ is ] l egal l y i de nt i

f i e d w ith h im .” 42 F.2d at83 3 (e m p h as is ad d ed ). M or eo ve r, A lem ite’ s re su lt

— that a sal esm an i s no t bound al ong w i th hi s co rpor ati on

— i s co nsi ste nt with M e r r i am ’ s ho l ding that a “ keyem plo yee , ” w ith o ut m o re, i s n ot leg ally id en tifie d w ith th e e nj oin ed co m p an y. M e r r i am , 639 F. 2d at 37. To b e s ure, t h er e are f actualdi ffer ences be twe enthe t wo ca se s, but we fi nd no te ns i o n be twe enthe tw o a s a lega l m at te r. See i d. at39 ( dist i ngui shi ng A le m it e o n the se g r o unds )
. Bo thc ase s r ec o g ni ze the f o l l o wi ng ca te g o r i es o fno npa r tyc o nt empt l i ab i l i ty : ( 1) a i der s an d ab et to r s; a nd ( 2) tho se who a re l eg al l y i den ti fi ed wi ththe enj oined pa rty. “L egal id en tity” u su all y m ean s su cce ssors and assi gns, b u t itcan i ncl ud e a l i m i ted cl ass o fo ther n on p ar tie s a s w ell

—pro vid edthe evi dence es tabl i shes a ver y cl ose identi ty ofinte re st and such signi fi cant contr ol o ve r the o r g an i za ti o n andth e u n d er lyin g litig at ion th at it i s f ai r to saythatthe nonparty h ad h is day i n cour t when the i nj un c t i o n wa s i s s ue d.30 N o. 08

- 2306 As f o r th e per ce i ve d i nc o ns i st en cyb etwee n Me r r i a m an d Z enith Ra dio , he r e to o we di sa g r ee . In Z eni th Rad io t he Sup rem e C ou rt reit e r a t ed the gen eral r ule th at a cou rt m ay not i ssue an i nj uncti on a gainst a p er son ove r w hi ch the c ourthad n ot acqu i re d j uri sdic ti on byse rv i ce o f p r o c es s. 39 5 U .S. at 1 10 -12 ; a c c o r d Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Kirs ch e nb aum , 1 56 F
. 3d 78 4, 7 94

- 96 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8)
. But the Cour t cl early anti ci pated thata nonpartym ay proper l y b e hel d i n conte m pt f orvi ol ating an i nj uncti on if th e co ur t ac qui r es j ur i sdi ction o ve r the no npa r tya nd g i ve s th e n onpar tya n o ppo r tu ni tyt o c o nt es t whethe r he i s bo und bythe i nj uncti on a nd i s in f act i n contem pt. Z eni th Rad io , 39 5 U.S
. at11 2 ( “[ A ] nonparty with noti ce cannot be he l d i n conte m pt un til sho w n to be in con cert orpar t i cipat i on . Itw as er ro r to ente r the inj uncti on a gainst H azel ti ne, w i thout havi ng m ade thi s deter m i nati on in a p ro c ee d in g t o w h i c h H az elt in e w as a p ar ty .” (em p h as is ad d ed )) . O nc e a cou rt estab li sh es j urisd iction over a non p arty and offer s the nonparty thi s o pp or tuni ty to be hear d on wh etherco ncer ted act i on o r pri vi ty ex ist s, Z eni th Rad io req u ire s n o t h in g fu rt h er ins ofa r as R u le 65( d)( 2) i s co ncer ned

. SeeLake ShoreAsse t M gm t. , 51 1 F
. 3d at 767 (offering sim il a r u nd erstan d ing of Z eni th Rad io and stat i ng “ w heth era pa r ti cul arpe r so n o r fi r m i s among [ thos e l i ste d i n Rule 65 ( d)(2)( B)- ( C)] i s a deci si on that m ay be m ade onl y a fterthe perso n in questi on i s g i ven n ot ice an d a n o p p or tu n ity to be h ea rd ”); s e eal s o i d. (N onp arties stil l “ a ct at th eir p erili f th ey d isregard th e com m an d s of th e inj un ction, f or, if th e d istri ct cou rt ul ti m at ely de te r m i ne s th atthe ya r e i n c o nc er t wi th [ th e enj oined p a r t y ], then they w il l be in con tem p t of cou rt. ”);N o. 08

- 2306 31

The pr oc ee di ngs i n thi s c as e ful l y c om pl i ed wi th Z en ith R a d io
. 5 T he resp on d en ts w ere se rv ed w ith p ro cess, an d the co u rt he ld an ev id en tiary hea r i n g o fferin g them am p le an d com p lete o p p o rt u n ity to co n te st w h et h er th ey ca m e w ith in R u le 65 (d )(2). Wa ff e ns ch m i dtv. M ac Kay, 7 6 3 F
. 2 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 8 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 985) (sim ilar ). Th e di s t r i c tco urt r e a d Zen i t h Radi o m or e g ener al l y t o sta nd f orthe propos i ti on that “ a no n-par ty cannot be perso nal l y b ound by an i nj uncti on unl ess thatnon-party ha s ha d a n actual day i n cour t in i ts own r i ght. ” That’ s a true s ta te m en t, b utth e “ dayi n c o ur t” a t i ss ue i n Z eni th Radi o re fer s t o the no nparty ’ s op p or tuni ty to conte st w hether he ac ted i n conce rtwith a party c onte m noro r w as i n pr i v i t y a nd the r e f o r e b o un d b y the i nj un c t i o n. I fa fter ana ppr o pr i at e he ar i ngthe c o ur t co nc l ude s th atthe n on p ar ty w as in p riv ity w i t h t h e e nj oin ed p ar ty , Z eni th R adio do es no t r equi r e r el i ti g at i o n o fthe und erl y i ng co nt r o ve r sy . ( To the c o nt r ar y, a s we ha ve no te d, the gener alr ule i s that contem pt proc eedi ngs m ay not be use d to coll aterally attack th e inj un ction.) Me r r i a m does not h old , or ev en s u gg es t, th at a c ou rtm ay find a n on p ar ty in c on te m p t w ith ou t ac q u irin g p er so n al jur isd ict ion ov er h im and provi ding an o pp or tuni ty to conte st the g ro und s for fi ndi nghi m b o und b y a nd i n c o nt empt o fthe i nj unc ti o n. M e r r i am do es no t vi o l at e th e r ul e i n Z eni th Rad io
. 5 F i na l l y, tho ug h we ha ve few c as es i n thi s area, no ne co nfl i ctwi ththe a ppr o ac h t ak eni n M e r r i am , a nd o ne su gg es ts su b st an tia l ag re em en t. Rei ch v. Se a S pr i t eBoatCo. hel d that the pr esi dent and sol e s hare hol der o fS ea Spri te,32 N o. 08

- 2306

ane nj o i ne d c o r po r at i o n, was i n c o nt empt for di l ut i ngthe b o un d c o r po r a t i o n’ s a s s e t s a nd the r e a ft e r e s t ab l i s hi ng a n e w c o mp a n y t o e v a d e th e i nj u n c t i o n . 5 0 F
. 3 d 4 1 3
. We ex p lai ne d that the enj oined com p a n y ’s presid en t, R obert Sm i th, “w as o bl i ged to se cure Se a S pri te’ s co m pli ance [ wi ththe i nj unc ti o n] ; i ns te ad he en su r ed i ts defi an ce . The f or m ati on of [ the new com pany] f orthe adm i tte d pu rpos e ofev adingj ud gm ents aga i nst S ea Sp ri te w as a furtheract ofco ntem pt. ” Id. at41 7. W hi l e the new c om pany w as cl ea r l y a s ucc es so r i n i nt er es t t o the bo und co r po r at i o n, o ur r ea so ni ngs u g g e s t s th a tc o n te m pt ag ains t th e pr es i den t an d so le s h ar eh old er w as ap p ro p ria te be c au se h e w as lega lly id en tifie d w ith Sea Sp rit e (in th e sen se th at h e c om p let ely contr ol l ed it), pers onal l y par ti ci pated i n the i nj uncti on pr o c e e di ng s , a nd di r e c t e d the u s e o fthe n e w c o r po ra ti on to vio l a t e t h e inj u n c tio n . Id. ( “A sa l e o fS ea Spri te’ s a sse ts to a n u n re lat ed p ar ty w ou ld p os e d iffer en t, an d p ot en tia lly diffi cul t pr obl em s. . . . A shuffl e between two cor pora ti ons, b ot h w h olly ow n ed by Sm ith , ca n n otav oid th e inj u n c tio n .” (c ita tio n om itt ed )); see also R o ck w ell G rap hic Sy s. , 91 F. 3d at 92 2 ( Esc hb ac h, J
. , co nc ur r i ng ) ( st r es singtha t th e pr es i den t ofan e nj oi ned com pany “ fi nd s no quart eri n the f act that [th e c om p a n y] is n o lon ge r inex ist en c e” ). Me r r i a m has b ee n cit ed w it h a p p ro va l by on e c irc u it, see Flo w da ta, 154 F. 3d at 13 52 -53, and has not been express l y r ej ecte d an yw h er e e lse

. Acc o r di ng l y, i twa s a mi s t a k e t o r ej e c t M e r r i am . A ke y of fi c e r, e mpl o y e e , o r s ha r e ho l de r o fa n e nj o i ne d c o r po ra ti o n may b e p erson all y b o und b y the i nj unc ti o n a fte r the cor pora ti on di sso l ves if he i s so clos ely i den ti fi ed i n inte re st an d h ad a c on tr ollin g ro le int h e c or p or at ion an d inN o. 08

- 2306 33 th e unde r l y i ngl i ti g at i o n tha t i t is fai r to c o nc l ude tha t he ha d h i s d a y i n c o u r t wh e n th e i nj u n c t i o n wa s i s s u e d

. The Feder alCi rcui t h as i denti fi ed the f ol l owing f acto rs that m ay be per ti nent t o the Me r r i a m in q u ir y: “[T]h e officer’s po si ti o n a nd r es po ns ibi l i ti es i n the e nj o i ne d c o r po r at i o n, hi s par ti ci pati on in the l i ti gat i on that prece ded the e ntryo f th e inj u n c tio n, an d th e d eg re e o f sim ilar ity be tw ee n h is acti vi ti es i n th e o l d and new busi nesse s. ” Id. at13 52 ( expla i nin g t he M e r r i am te st)
. I t be ar s e m phasi zi ng tha t due pr o ce ss r equi r es a n e xt r emel y cl o se i den ti fi ca ti o n a nd w i l lb e sa tisfi ed onl y when the nonpar ty “ke y e m plo yee ” ag ains t whom co nt empt sa nc ti o ns a r e so ug htha d s ubs ta ntia l d i scr eti on, co ntro l, and i nfl uence o verthe enj oi ned or gani zati on

—both i n gene ra land w i th r esp ec t to i ts parti ci pati on in the und er l ying litiga ti on

— andther e i s a h i g h d e g r ee of sim ilar ity be tw ee n th e a c tiv itie s o f th e o ld or ga n iza tio n an d th e n ew . Se eM er r i am , 63 9 F
. 2d at 39 ( fi ndi nga na l o g y t o pi er cing - th e- co r po r at e- ve i ldo ct r in e to be “ap t”).

D . M ar angel l a,S c hlat t er,and the Pr ovi si onal N at i onal C ou n cil Al tho ugh i tr ej e c t e d M e r r i am , the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs ar e s uffi ci entl y deta i l ed and supp or ted bythe re c ord that w e ca n affi rm the cour t’ s no - pri vi ty fi nd i ng witho ut a re m and. Of par ti cul ari m port ance ar e the co urt’ s fi nd i ngs reg ard ing the dissim il ariti es betw een the H ered itary Guar d i a n s h i p a n d th e P r o v i s i o n a lNa t i o n a lC o u n c i l, a nd th e b r ea kb etwee n Re m eya nd hi s f o l l o wer s o n the o ne34 N o. 08

- 2306 hand and M ar angel l a, S chl att er, and thei r cor el i gi oni sts o n the othe r. I t i s tr ue that M ar angel l a and S chl att ero ccupie d keyposi ti ons i n the H er edi tar y Guardi anshi p, and both parti ci pated i n var yi ng degr ees i n the und er l yi ng tr adem ark li tigation. I n oth er circum stan ces w e m igh t requ ire m or e d eta i l ed f act- fi nd i ng r ega rding the pre ci se ro l e e ach nonpartyal l ege d contem nor p l aye d i n the enj oi ned o r g an i za ti o n a nd i n the unde r l y i ngi nj unc ti o n l i ti g at i o n. Forr eas ons w e wil lexpl ai n, however, we can di sp ense w i th thather e. The dis tr i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that the P ro visi onalN at i o na lCo un c i l, wh i c h r e pr e s e nt s tho s e wh o a c c e pt M ar an ge lla a s th e Th ird G u ar d ian , is s u b st an tia lly d iss im il arto the H er edi tar y Guardi anshi p; the re cor d supp or ts th i s concl us i o n. Al th o ug h Mar an g el l a, S ch l at te r, a nd ot h er m em b e r s of th e P ro vis ion al N at ion al C ou n c il w er e a c tiv ely inv olv ed in t h e H er ed ita ry G u ar d ian sh ip i n the 1 960s , the re cor d refl ects thatafterthe i nj uncti on was i ss ue d a nd the He r e d i t a ryG u a r d i a ns hi p di ss o l ve d, the re m nants o fthi s di ssi dent gr oup scat ter ed. A ftera tw oy e a r p e r i o d o f d o r ma n c y, Ma r a n g e l l a a n n o u n c e d h i s o wn Gu ar dianshi p and bro ke w i th Rem ey on m att er s o fsucce ss o r s h i p , d o c t r i n e , a n d g o v e r n a n c e . S c h l a t t e r f o l l o we d h i m, an d a n ew relig iou s o rg an iza t i o n w as es ta b lish ed , albe it ( eve ntual l y) o perat i ng i n the sam e pl ace and w i th so m e o f th e s am e pe op le as w ere involved i n th e H ered itary Guar di an sh i p. The ne w g r o up, i n due co ur se , to ok the na m e “Prov isi ona l N ational C ou nc il

. ” Th e d is trict court sp ecifi cally fou n d that “the vast w eight of the record ev i den ce e st ab li sh es tha t th e [ Pr o vi si o na lNat i o na lCo unci l ] was no t f o r m ed f o r the pur po se of escapingthe c o n-N o. 08

- 2306 35 fi nes o fthe i nj uncti on. ” The c ou rt al so f ound that i ts m em b er sh ip

— n u m b er in g a b ou t 4 0 p eo p le

— “d id n otin f act encom pass a l lo fthe sam e ind i vi du al s that c om pri sed th e [ H er edi ta r y Gua r di an sh i p]
. ” B ased onthe se f ac ts , the cour t co ncl ud ed that on a “d efi ni ng p oi nt o fo rg ani zati onal pu rpos e, ther e exi ste d a robust doct rinaldi vi de” betw een the H er edi tar y Guardi anshi p and the Pr ovi si onalN ati onal Council

. The co urt al so concl ud ed th at t he l att erwas not “op erating in effect” as th e form er, nor d id there “oth erwi s e [ e x i s t ] a s u bs t a n t i a lc o n t i n u i t y b e t we e n th e t wo gr ou p s.” These fi nd i ng s and concl usi ons ar e s uffi ci ent t o defe at any c l ai m thatM ar angel l a, S chl att er, and the Prov i si onal N at ion al C ou n c il are “le ga lly id en tifie d ” w ith th e H er ed ita r y Gua r di an sh i p a nd the r efo r e i n pr i vi tywith i t an d bo und b y the 19 66 i nj unc ti o n. Thi s i s so e ve n a ss um i ng M ar angel l a and S chl att er coul d b e consi dered “k ey” o ffi ce r s o r a g en ts o fthe Her edi ta r y Gua r di an sh i p. The d octrinaldi ffer ences

— especi al l y when com bi ned w i th th e p a s s a g e o ft i me

— m ake i t cl earas a m att ero fl aw that the Pr ovi si onalN ati onalCounci land i ts pri nci pal s ca nnot be con side red “legally i d en tified” w ith th e H ered itary Gu ar dianship o r Rem ey. To t ake not e o fthes e di ffer ences is not to de cid e a rel igi ou s d ispu te; th e d istri ct cou r t ’s fi nd i ng s a nd c o nc l us i o ns do n o tt r a ns g r e s s P res b yt e r i an C hurch

. Acco r di ng l y, e ve n whe n Me r r i a m i s t ake n i nto acco unt, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s no - pri vi ty concl usi on a s to thi s g ro up o fal l ege d contem nor s was co rr ect.36 N o. 08

- 2306 E . S ec on d In tern atio n al C ou n c il an d Ba h á’í P u b lis h ers T he Nat i o na lS pi r i tu alAss embl y a l so c ha l l en g es the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on that the S eco nd Inter nati onal Cou nc i la nd Ba há’í P ub l i sh er s ar e no t bo und b y the i nj uncti on. I t o ffer s tw o re aso n s f orbi nd i ng the se nonp ar ti es : F i r st, the y wer e cr ea te d b y J en se n, who ( th e ar gum en t g o es ) was pe r so na l l y b o und b y the inj unc ti o n; an d s ec o nd, the y a r e su cc es so r s i n int er es t to Re m ey, who als o w as p er so n ally bo u n d by th e inj u n c tio n .
1. The Jensen Connec ti on The di st r i ctc o ur t r ej ec te d the co nt en ti o n th atthe S ec o nd I nter nati onalCounci land Bahá’íPubl i sher s were i n pri vi ty w i th the H er ed i tar y Guardi anshi p thro ugh J ensen. A fter decl i ni ng to a pp l y M e r r i am , the j ud ge expli ci tl y e nter ed an al ternati ve hol ding that J ensen w as not l ega l l y i denti fi ed w ith th e H ered itary G ua rd iansh ip even i f M e r r i am a pp l i e d. The j ud ge ackno w l edged thatJ ensen w as an i ncor pora tor ofthe H er edi tar y G uardi anshi p, thathe s er ved as o ne o fi ts fi rs t bo ar d m em ber s, and that c onte m pora neous evi dence su gg es te d th at Jen se n rem ain ed a follo w er of th e H er ed ita r y Gua r di an sh i p dur i ngthe un d er l y i ngl i ti g at i o n. N eve rthel ess , the cour t found that J ensen disa ss oci ate d h im se lf from an y g ov er n in g ro le in th e o rg an iza tio n sho rt ly aft er s er vin g h is on e-y ea r te rm o n t h e b oa rd . Th is w as w ell b e f o r e the u nd e r l y i ngi nj un c t i o n wa s i s s ue d. The Na ti onalS pir i tualA sse m bl y di sputes these fi nd i ngs. I t ar g ue s th atJ en se n’ s ex te ns i ve i nv o l ve m en t wi ththe H er edi tar y Guardi anshi p pri or to the underl yi ng l i ti gat i onN o. 08

- 2306 37

es tabl i sh es l eg ali den ti ty
. W e se e no cleare r r o r i n the dist ri ct cour t’ s fi nd i ngs, w hi ch w er e am ply supp or ted by th e re c or d . Je n se n ’s te rm o n t h e H er ed ita ry G u ar d ian sh ip boar d ended i n the m i dd l e of1964; h e w as not re el ecte d as a bo ar d m em ber

. A fterhe l ostreel ecti on, h e di d not s er ve i n a g ove rnance , advi sor y, o r any othercontro l l i ng posi ti on i n the H er edi tar y Gu ar dianshi p, and he had n o in volv em ent in the und er l yi ng l i ti gat i on. A s s uch, J ensen did not o cc upy th e so r t o f“ k ey ” r o l e i n the Her edi ta r y Gua r di an sh ip

— ei therge nera l l y o r w i th r espectto inj uncti on l i ti gati on

— th atc o ul d f o r m the b as i s o fa “ l eg ali den ti ty ” fi ndi ng un d er M e r r i am . The N ati on al Sp iritu al A ss em b ly a rg u es in t h e al ternati ve that J e ns e n ( a nd b y e xt e ns i o n, the S e c o nd Int e r na t i o nal Cou nc i la nd the Ba há ’ íPub l i sh er s) s ho ul d b e bo und b y the i nj unc ti o n b eca us e J en se n r emai ne d a n a dhe r en t an d the H er edi tar y Guardi anshi p adequatel y r epres ented i ts be l i ev er s’ i nt er es ts inthe unde r l y i ngs ui t ag ains t th e N at i o na lS pi r i tu alAss embl y . The S upr eme Cou r t i n Taylo r an d o uro wn r ec en t dec i si o n in Ticer ec o g ni ze tha t th e c onc ep t of p rivi ty in prec lusion d octrine inc lud es a very lim ite d ad eq u at e- r ep re se n ta tio nca te go ry . Se eTayl or, 55 3 U
. S. at89 4 ( obs er vin g that “ adequate r epres entat i on” by “so m eone with the sa m e int er es ts w ho [ w a] s a party” to th e e ar lier s u it s u ffice d for p riv ity p u rp os es “in ce rt ain l i m i ted ci rcum sta nces ,” i ncl ud i ng “pr oper l y c onducted cl ass act i ons” and “sui ts bro ught by truste es, guar dians, an d oth er fid u c iar ies ”); Tice, 16 2 F
. 3d at 973 ( “[ U ] nl ess a form al kind of su cce s s o r i nt erest is inv olved

. . . , there shoul d be s om e ind i cati on . . . thatthe seco nd party e i ther h ad p ar tic ip at ed or h ad a leg al d u ty to p ar t i c i p a t e.” ); see38 N o. 08

- 2306 al s o R ES TATE MENT (S EC OND ) OF J UD GM EN TS § 4 1 (s im ilar ly l i mi t i n ga d e q u a t e - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n th e o r y o fp r i v i t y )
. The tr ad em ar k litig at ion 44 ye ar s a go d oe s n otfit in to th is l i m i ted cat ego ry . A fi ndi ng o f pr i vi ty ba se d o n “ ade qua te r epr es en ta ti o n” in the circum stan ces of th is case w ou ld be en tirel y un w arr an te d. The Her edi ta r y Gua r di an sh i p di d no t co nduc t th e und er l yi ng l i ti gat i on a s an ythi ng l i ke a fi du ci ar y fori ts m embe r s, a nd the r e i s no ev i den ce t o s ug g es t i t was a ct i ng i n a repr ese ntati ve capaci ty f ori ts f ol l owers personally

. To fi nd privity ba s e d on “ad eq ua te rep resen tation” here w oul d tre at eve ry s u it b y a n or gani zati on a s hav i ng r es j ud icata an d cont em p t im p li cation s for th e organizat ion’s memb e r s individually

. T h i s i s c o n t r a r y t o th e S u p r e me Court’s l an g ua g e i n Ta ylo r car efully l i m i ti ng the sco pe of the a dequ ate
- re prese ntati on ca teg or y o fpri vi ty. A t bo tto m , thi s a rgum ent i s a n appeal to the theo ryo f “vi rtual r epres entat i on, ” which the S up re m e C ou rthas firm ly rej ec te d in t h e fie ld of cla im p re c lu sio n . Taylo r, 55 3 U
. S. a t 904. H aving rej ecte d vir tu al- rep resen tation th eory i n i ts t r adi ti o na lr es j udi ca ta s et ting, we se e no r ea so n why th e S upr eme Co ur t woul d v i ew i t m or e f av o r ab l yi n the conte xt of i nj uncti ons. The dist ri ct c ourtpro perl y r ej ecte d th e at te m pt to b i nd the S ec o nd I nt erna ti o na lCo unc i la nd Bah á’ íPub l i sh er s th r o ug h J en se n.

2. The Rem ey Connecti on The Nat i o na lS pi r i tu al Ass embl y a l so a r g ue s th atthe Secon d In t erna tional Cou nc iland Ba há ’íPu bli sh ers areN o. 08

- 2306 39 b ou n d by th e injun c tio n th ro u gh p riv ity w ith R em ey . Th is ar g ume nt i s b a s e d o n t r a de mar k

- r e g i s t r a t i o n fi l i ng s with the Unite d Sta tes Pate nt and Tradem ar k Offi ce in w hi ch N ealChase, the curr ent pr esi d en t o fthe Se cond I nter nati o na lCo unc i la nd Ba há ’ íPub l i sh er s, e xpl aine d th atthe thro ne to the “Davi dic ki ngdom ” pass ed by su c cess i on fro m Bahá’ u’l l áh to A bdu’ l

- Bahá, to Charl es M aso n Rem ey, t o P e p e R e me y ( R e me y ’ s a d o p t e d s o n ) , a n d no w t o h i m. The N ati onalS pir i tualA sse m bl y t re ats the se fil i ngs a s a n ad m issi on of l egal suc cess orsh ip to Re m ey, w ho in tu rn wa s l e g a l l y i de nt i fi e d wi th the He r e di t a r y Gu a r di a ns hi p. The dis tr ict cour t t re ate d the t ra dem ar k- re gi str ati on fi l i ngs as nonbi nd i ng ev i denti ar y a dm i ssi ons ra therthan bi nd i ng j ud i ci aladm i ssion s. See He l p atHom e, Inc . v. M e d. Cap i t al, L
. L
. C. , 260 F .3 d 7 4 8 , 753 & n.2 ( 7th Cir. 2001); H iggi ns v. M i ss i s s ippi, 217 F.3d 951 , 954 (7th C ir. 2000); M urrey v. U nited Sta tes , 73 F. 3d 1448, 14 5 5 ( 7 t h C ir. 1996); Keller v. U nited Sta tes , 5 8 F. 3d 1194, 1198 n.8 (7th C ir. 1995). The N ati onalS pir i tualA sse m bl y a pp ar entl y a gr ees with thi s char acteri zati on, but ar gues that the c ourtga ve them i nsuffi ci ent wei ght. W e fi nd n o f aul t with the dist ri ct co urt’s tre at m en t o fthi s f ac tu almatt er . Othe r tha n the ve rs ion of s p iritu al-le ad er sh ip su c c es sio n d es c rib ed in tr adem ar k fi l i ngs, the N ati onal Spi ri tual A sse m bl y o ffer ed no e vi den ce o fa l i nkb etwee n Re m ey an d the S ec o nd I nter nati onalC ounci lor Bahá’íPubl i sher s. Ind eed, Rem ey ha d n o inv olvem en t in eith er organization and died m ore than 25 yea rs bef or e the Se cond I nter nati onalCounci lwas est abl i shed. N ei therthe Se cond I nter nati onalCounci lnor Bahá’íPubl i sher s r ecei ved an y m oney, pro perty, o r othe r ass et s fr o m Re meyo r the He r e di t a r y Gu a r di a ns hi p. On40 N o. 08

- 2306 th e s e f a c t s th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y c o n c l u d e d th att he Se cond I nter nati onalC ounci land Bahá’íPubl i sher s a re not su c c es so rs to R em ey . See Wa l l i ng, 32 1 U.S
. at674 ( succes sor s a re “those to w h om the busi ness m ay have been tran sferred ”); Flowd ata , 15 4 F
. 3d at 1355 ( nonpartysucce ssor ship l i abi l i ty und eri nj uncti on r equi re s a “s ubstanti al c on tin u ity of id en t i t y ”); cf
. Gol de n S t at eBot t l i ng Co. , 41 4 U
. S. at17 9 ( fi nd i ng bo na fi de purchasero fa busi ness en te r pr i se w as the l eg als ucc es so r t o the e nt er pr i se a nd th u s s u bj ec t t o e n te rp ris e’s liab ility ); R ei ch , 5 0 F.3d at 417( a com p an y tha t “acq uired the bu siness su bj ect to th is court’s ord er” w as legal su cce ssor an d bou nd by the order). A FFI RMED .

11- 23- 10