### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

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 U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 8, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk Case: 12-31176 Document: 00512336031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2013No. 12-31176

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * For the second time in six m onths, Appellants ask us to r eview the propriety of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s f indings regarding jurisdiction and contempt. See Seven Ar t s P i ctures, Inc. v. Jonesfilm , 512 F. App’x 419 ( 5th Cir. 2013) ( u n published). 1 Here, again, we find no reversible error in the district co u r t ’ s findings and therefore AFFIRM. By this time, the parties a n d the court are intimately familiar with the relevant facts. Nevertheless, we p rovide a brief s ummary of the events preceding th e o rder t hat gives rise to the instant appeal, which demonstrate Appellants’ continuing d isregard for the lawful m andates o f the judici a r y
. I n d e e d , a s d iscussed below, t he contempt order a t issue here is the third such order e ntered against Appellant Peter Hoffman and companies that he owns or affiliates with (collectively, the “judgment debtors”). Sinc e 2005, Jonesfilm h as been involved in a series of arbitrations and lawsuits with the judgment debtors, including C inevisions and Appellant Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment, Ltd. (“SAFE”). In 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central D istrict of California confirmed an a rbitr a t i o n a ward and entered judgment in favor of Jonesfilm and against the judgment debtors f o r almost $300,000 plus attorneys’ fees, costs, a nd interest. After the California district

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not preced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et f orth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4.

1 In light of this decis ion, Ap p ellants w ithd rew their argum ents in this ap p eal regard ing the d is trict court ’ s j u r i s d iction over Peter H of f m an and the d is trict court’s ord er d enying a m otion to trans f er und er 28 U

. S. C. § 1404( a)

.

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

court entered this judgment, Jonesfilm filed a motion for contempt a gainst the judgment debt o r s
. T he California district court granted Jonesfilm’s motion in part, holding H offman, C inevision s , and SAFE (among other entities) in contempt for failing to c omply with i ts judgment and awar d i n g Jonesfilm $14,300 in attorney s ’ fees. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the California district court’s order. Seven A rts Pictures PLC v. Jonesfilm , 311 F. App’x 962, 9 65 (9th C i r
. F e b

. 12, 2 009). According t o J o nesfilm, neither Hoffman nor any oth e r judgment debtors have purged the California contempt order. Through discovery in t he C alifornia proceeding, Jonesfilm learned that Hoffman and o t her j udgment debtors own or control several Louisiana limitedliability companies. Thus, Jonesfilm registered the California judgment in the U

. S

. District Court f

o r the Eastern D istrict of Louisiana. T h e district court ordered Hoffman and the o ther judgment debt o r s t o produce Schedule K-1s, financial statements, an d t a x r eturns. 2 It also garnished funds held on behalf of the judgment debtors by L o u i s iana companies, including Appellant Leeway Properties, Inc. (“Leeway”). On Jonesfilm’s motion , t h e district court later determined that Hoffman, t he other judgment debtors, and Leeway disobeyed these ord e r s ; a c c ordingly, in November 2011, it held them in c ontempt and

2 In the prior ap p eal, Hof f m an and Seven Arts Pictures , Inc. ( “SAP”) contend ed that the d is trict court s hould not have ord ered them to d is clos e their tax returns in p os t- jud gm ent d is covery. Sev en A rts Pi ctures, Inc. , 512 F. Ap p ’x at 424–25. I n s up port of this argum ent, they
as s erted that the tax returns w ere unavailable. Id. at 425. But, as w e exp lained , this argum ent is jus t one more exam p le of the dep th of the contem p tuous cond uct: If SAP’s tax returns were unavailable, the p rop er res p ons e w as to inf orm the court of that fact, not to ignore the ord ers until a contem p t m otion w as brought. Any of SAP and H of

fm an’s jus ti f

i c a t i ons could have s up ported a m otion to
m od if y or v acate the charging ord ers , but none of them com es clos e to jus tif ying the utter d is regard f

or the d is trict court. Id.

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

ordered them to deliver t he garnished funds a n d p ay Jonesfilm more than $21,000 in attorneys’ fees. W e affirmed the district c ourt’s o rder. 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 d i d n o t comply with it either. So, in November 2 012 the district court held them in co n tempt for disobeying it. We referenced this development i n o ur February 18 decision and admonished Hoffman and Leeway t hat they “would be wis e t o fulfill their obligations to the court without delay.” Id. at 428. Rather t han heed our guidan c e and comply with the district court’s first o r s econd contempt orders, Hoffman a n d Leeway brought this appeal challenging t he November 2012 contempt order. SAFE also appeals, c hallenging the district court’s e xercise of personal jurisdiction over it. We r eview a d ist r i c t c o u r t ’s contempt orders and t he sanctions that it imposed pursuant to those orders for an a buse of d iscretion. Whitcraft v. Brown , 570 F.3d 268, 271 (5t h C i r
. 2 0 0 9 ) (citing United States v. City of Jackson , 359 F.3d 727, 731 ( 5th Cir. 2004)). We r eview the district c ourt’s underlying findings of fact for clear error and its co n c l u s i o ns of law de novo
. Id. (citing City of J a c k s o n , 359 F.3d at 731). The district c ourt’s determination that it h a s personal jurisdiction o v e r a d e f endant is a conclusion of law and, therefore, is subject to de novo r eview. Quick Tech., Inc. v
. S age Grp. PLC , 313 F.3d 338, 343 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Mink v. AAAA Dev. L.L.C. , 190 F.3d 3 33, 335 ( 5 t h 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: 08/08/2013No. 12-31176

The district court did not abuse its discretion. As the Supreme Court has explained: [A]ll ord e r s and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly. If a person to whom a court directs an order believes that order i s i ncorrect the remedy is to appe a l , but, absent a stay, he must comply promptly with the order pending appeal

. Persons who make private determinations of t he law and r efuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt e ven if the order is u l t i m ately ruled incorrect. Maness v. Meyers , 419 U.S. 449, 4 58 (1975) (emphasis added); see also Hornbeck Offshore Servs., L.L.C. v
. Salazar , 713 F.3d 787, 7 92 ( 5th Cir. 2013) ( recognizing that federal c o urts’ inherent contempt power “promotes the due and orderly administration of j ustice and safeguards the court’s authority” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Here, as we explained i n our February 18 decision, Appellants did not seek to stay t he district court’s November 2011 contempt order, nor d id they comply with it. See Seven Arts Pictures, Inc. , 512 F. App’x at 428. This disregard for the d istrict court’s order was but one installment i n the con t i n uing tale of A ppellants’ c ontemptuous conduct. The district court’s thirty-one page opinion c o m p r e hensively d iscussed these facts, the governing l egal principles, and the appropriateness of the sanctions that it imposed. We s ee no reversible error i n the d i strict court’s w ell-reasoned analysis

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

3 The d is trict court’s N ovem ber 2011 contem pt ord er lis ted “Seven Arts Entertainm ent Lim ited ” as a j ud gm ent d ebtor; how ever, there is no such entity. As p art of its N ovem ber 2012 contem p t ord er, the d is trict court corrected this error t o n a m e “Seven Arts Entertainm ent, Inc. ” and “Seven Arts F ilm ed Entertainm ent Lim ited ” as s ep arate jud gm ent d ebtors

. Ap p ellants contend that the d is trict court had no authority to m ak e this r e vis ion becaus e Seven Arts Entertainm ent, Inc. is not a jud gm ent d ebtor. W e reject this argum ent. T he Calif ornia d is trict court’s jud gm ent conf irm ing the arbitration aw ard i n f a v o r of Jones f

ilm exp licitly s tates that it is bind ing on the jud gm ent d ebtors ’ s ucces s ors
. We agree w ith the

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

c o u r t is entitled to a degree of flexibility in vindicating its authority agai n s t 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 t h at the district court first determined that it had jurisdiction over SAFE in a September 2012 order that denied SAFE’s motion to d i smiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a separate but closely-related action. See Jonesfilm v. H offman , No. 11-1994, 2012 WL 4325461, at *5–8 (E.D. L a. Sept. 20, 2 01 2 )

. SAFE did n ot file a notice of appeal from that S e ptember order; to the cont r a r y, it joined with Hoffman in filing an Amended Answer and has c ontinued to litigate t hat action. Moreover, the district court’s September order explained in detail SAFE’s c ontacts with Louisiana, the benefits associated with those c ontacts, and SAFE’s intertwined and intimate relationship with Hoffman a nd o t h er entities over which the dist r i c t c o u r t has jurisdiction. See id. a t *5–8. F or the r easons stated in the district court ’ s September 2012 order and reiterated in its November 2012 contempt o rder, we a gree that the district c ourt may a s s e r t j urisdiction o ver SAFE. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.

d is trict court that S e ve n Arts Entertainm ent, Inc. is the s ucces s or of the nam ed jud gm ent d ebtor Seven Arts Pictures PLC.

4 The d is trict c ourt als o d eterm ined that it has juris diction over jud gm ent d ebtor Cinevis ions becaus e it is the alter ego of H of f m an. O n ap p eal, H of f man and SAFE contend that this conclus ion w as error. We d is agree. T he d is trict court’s alter ego analys is w as s ound

. M oreover, Cinevis ions did not f ile a n o t i ce of ap p eal. That H of f m an challenges the d is trict court’s f ind ing on Cinevis ions ’s behalf only s erves to reinf orce the dis trict court’s conclus ion that Cinevis ions is in f act H of f m an’s alter ego. See Ord er, Nos

. CV–05–1292 & CV–06–2387 ( C. D

. Cal. Feb. 26, 2008) (recognizing that N TTS Prod uctions Ltd

. w as an alter ego of H of f m an and noting that N TTS trans f erred all of

its as s ets to Cinevis ions )

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