IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-31176

SEVEN ARTS FILMED ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED, an English

corporation,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JONESFILM, a Pennsylvania joint venture,

Defendant - Appellee, 

v.

LEEWAY PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED,

Garnishee - Appellant

***************

JONESFILM,

Creditor - Appellee,

v.

PETER M. HOFFMAN; SEVEN ARTS FILMED ENTERTAINMENT

LIMITED,

Interested Parties - Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:09–MC–4814

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 8, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-31176 Document: 00512336031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2013
No. 12-31176

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

For the second time in six months, Appellants ask us to review the

propriety of the district court’s findings regarding jurisdiction and contempt. See

Seven Arts Pictures, Inc. v. Jonesfilm, 512 F. App’x 419 (5th Cir. 2013)

(unpublished).1 Here, again, we find no reversible error in the district court’s

findings and therefore AFFIRM.

By this time, the parties and the court are intimately familiar with the

relevant facts. Nevertheless, we provide a brief summary of the events

preceding the order that gives rise to the instant appeal, which demonstrate

Appellants’ continuing disregard for the lawful mandates of the judiciary. 

Indeed, as discussed below, the contempt order at issue here is the third such

order entered against Appellant Peter Hoffman and companies that he owns or

affiliates with (collectively, the “judgment debtors”).

Since 2005, Jonesfilm has been involved in a series of arbitrations and

lawsuits with the judgment debtors, including Cinevisions and Appellant Seven

Arts Filmed Entertainment, Ltd. (“SAFE”). In 2007, the U.S. District Court for

the Central District of California confirmed an arbitration award and entered

judgment in favor of Jonesfilm and against the judgment debtors for almost

$300,000 plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest. After the California district

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

1

In light of this decision, Appellants withdrew their arguments in this appeal

regarding the district court’s jurisdiction over Peter Hoffman and the district court’s order

denying a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

2

 Case: 12-31176 Document: 00512336031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2013
No. 12-31176

court entered this judgment, Jonesfilm filed a motion for contempt against the

judgment debtors. The California district court granted Jonesfilm’s motion in

part, holding Hoffman, Cinevisions, and SAFE (among other entities) in

contempt for failing to comply with its judgment and awarding Jonesfilm

$14,300 in attorneys’ fees. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the California district

court’s order. Seven Arts Pictures PLC v. Jonesfilm, 311 F. App’x 962, 965 (9th

Cir. Feb. 12, 2009). According to Jonesfilm, neither Hoffman nor any other

judgment debtors have purged the California contempt order.

Through discovery in the California proceeding, Jonesfilm learned that

Hoffman and other judgment debtors own or control several Louisiana limitedliability companies. Thus, Jonesfilm registered the California judgment in the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The district court

ordered Hoffman and the other judgment debtors to produce Schedule K-1s,

financial statements, and tax returns.2It also garnished funds held on behalf

of the judgment debtors by Louisiana companies, including Appellant Leeway

Properties, Inc. (“Leeway”). On Jonesfilm’s motion, the district court later

determined that Hoffman, the other judgment debtors, and Leeway disobeyed

these orders; accordingly, in November 2011, it held them in contempt and

2

In the prior appeal, Hoffman and Seven Arts Pictures, Inc. (“SAP”) contended that

the district court should not have ordered them to disclose their tax returns in post-judgment

discovery. Seven Arts Pictures, Inc., 512 F. App’x at 424–25. In support of this argument, they

asserted that the tax returns were unavailable. Id. at 425. But, as we explained, this

argument is just one more example of the depth of the contemptuous conduct:

If SAP’s tax returns were unavailable, the proper response was to inform the

court of that fact, not to ignore the orders until a contempt motion was brought.

Any of SAP and Hoffman’s justifications could have supported a motion to

modify or vacate the charging orders, but none of them comes close to justifying

the utter disregard for the district court.

Id.

3

 Case: 12-31176 Document: 00512336031 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/08/2013
No. 12-31176

ordered them to deliver the garnished funds and pay Jonesfilm more than

$21,000 in attorneys’ fees. We affirmed the district court’s order. See Seven Arts

Pictures, Inc., 512 F. App’x at 422–28.

Hoffman and Leeway did not ask the district court to stay the November

2011 contempt order pending their appeal, but they did not comply with it

either. So, in November 2012 the district court held them in contempt for

disobeying it. We referenced this development in our February 18 decision and

admonished Hoffman and Leeway that they “would be wise to fulfill their

obligations to the court without delay.” Id. at 428. Rather than heed our

guidance and comply with the district court’s first or second contempt orders,

Hoffman and Leeway brought this appeal challenging the November 2012

contempt order. SAFE also appeals, challenging the district court’s exercise of

personal jurisdiction over it.

We review a district court’s contempt orders and the sanctions that it 

imposed pursuant to those orders for an abuse of discretion. Whitcraft v. Brown,

570 F.3d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. City of Jackson, 359

F.3d 727, 731 (5th Cir. 2004)). We review the district court’s underlying findings

of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. Id. (citing City of

Jackson, 359 F.3d at 731). The district court’s determination that it has

personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a conclusion of law and, therefore, is

subject to de novo review. Quick Tech., Inc. v. Sage Grp. PLC, 313 F.3d 338, 343

(5th Cir. 2002) (citing Mink v. AAAA Dev. L.L.C., 190 F.3d 333, 335 (5th Cir.

1999)). Applying these standards here, we find no reversible error in the district

court’s November 2012 order.

4

 Case: 12-31176 Document: 00512336031 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/08/2013
No. 12-31176

The district court did not abuse its discretion. As the Supreme Court has

explained:

[A]ll orders and judgments of courts must be complied with

promptly. If a person to whom a court directs an order believes that

order is incorrect the remedy is to appeal, but, absent a stay, he

must comply promptly with the order pending appeal. Persons who

make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order

generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately

ruled incorrect.

Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975) (emphasis added); see also Hornbeck

Offshore Servs., L.L.C. v. Salazar, 713 F.3d 787, 792 (5th Cir. 2013) (recognizing

that federal courts’ inherent contempt power “promotes the due and orderly

administration of justice and safeguards the court’s authority” (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted)). Here, as we explained in our February

18 decision, Appellants did not seek to stay the district court’s November 2011

contempt order, nor did they comply with it. See Seven Arts Pictures, Inc., 512

F. App’x at 428. This disregard for the district court’s order was but one

installment in the continuing tale of Appellants’ contemptuous conduct. The

district court’s thirty-one page opinion comprehensively discussed these facts,

the governing legal principles, and the appropriateness of the sanctions that it

imposed. We see no reversible error in the district court’s well-reasoned analysis

or conclusions.3 See Hornbeck Offshore Servs., 713 F.3d at 792 (“[A] district

3 The district court’s November 2011 contempt order listed “Seven Arts Entertainment

Limited” as a judgment debtor; however, there is no such entity. As part of its November 2012

contempt order, the district court corrected this error to name “Seven Arts Entertainment,

Inc.” and “Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Limited” as separate judgment debtors.

Appellants contend that the district court had no authority to make this revision because

Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc. is not a judgment debtor. We reject this argument. The

California district court’s judgment confirming the arbitration award in favor of Jonesfilm

explicitly states that it is binding on the judgment debtors’ successors. We agree with the

5

 Case: 12-31176 Document: 00512336031 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/08/2013
No. 12-31176

court is entitled to a degree of flexibility in vindicating its authority against

actions that . . . violate the reasonably understood terms of [its] order[s].”).

We further conclude that the district court correctly determined it has

jurisdiction over SAFE.4 As an initial matter, we observe that the district court

first determined that it had jurisdiction over SAFE in a September 2012 order

that denied SAFE’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a

separate but closely-related action. See Jonesfilm v. Hoffman, No. 11-1994, 2012

WL 4325461, at *5–8 (E.D. La. Sept. 20, 2012). SAFE did not file a notice of

appeal from that September order; to the contrary, it joined with Hoffman in

filing an Amended Answer and has continued to litigate that action. Moreover,

the district court’s September order explained in detail SAFE’s contacts with

Louisiana, the benefits associated with those contacts, and SAFE’s intertwined

and intimate relationship with Hoffman and other entities over which the

district court has jurisdiction. See id. at *5–8. For the reasons stated in the

district court’s September 2012 order and reiterated in its November 2012

contempt order, we agree that the district court may assert jurisdiction over

SAFE.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.

district court that Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc. is the successor of the named judgment

debtor Seven Arts Pictures PLC.

4 The district court also determined that it has jurisdiction over judgment debtor

Cinevisions because it is the alter ego of Hoffman. On appeal, Hoffman and SAFE contend

that this conclusion was error. We disagree. The district court’s alter ego analysis was sound.

Moreover, Cinevisions did not file a notice of appeal. That Hoffman challenges the district

court’s finding on Cinevisions’s behalf only serves to reinforce the district court’s conclusion

that Cinevisions is in fact Hoffman’s alter ego. See Order, Nos. CV–05–1292 & CV–06–2387

(C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2008) (recognizing that NTTS Productions Ltd. was an alter ego of Hoffman

and noting that NTTS transferred all of its assets to Cinevisions).

6

 Case: 12-31176 Document: 00512336031 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/08/2013