1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, et 

al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-cv-00755 CW 

 

ORDER HOLDING OFFICERS AND 

PRINCIPALS OF DEFENDANT LIBRE BY 

NEXUS, INC. IN CIVIL CONTEMPT AND 

IMPOSING CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS 

(Re: Dkt. No. 232) 

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for an order holding the officers and principals 

of Defendant Libre by Nexus, Inc. (LBN), namely Micheal Donovan, Evan Ajin, and Richard 

Moore, in civil contempt and imposing civil contempt sanctions against them. Docket No. 232. 

After Donovan, Ajin, and Moore failed to file a response to Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court issued an 

order to show cause why civil contempt sanctions should not be imposed against them. The Court 

ordered counsel for LBN to serve a copy of the order to show cause on Donovan, Ajin, and 

Moore, and counsel for LBN confirmed that they did so. The deadline to file a response to the 

Court’s order to show cause was December 27, 2022, and no response was filed. For the reasons 

set forth below, and in light of the argument heard on January 19, 2023, the Court grants the 

motion in part and denies it in part, holding Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in civil contempt of Court 

and imposing sanctions as set forth below. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On February 8, 2021, the Court entered a Final Approval Order and Judgment, Docket No. 

184, in which the Court granted final approval of the parties’ settlement agreement. The operative 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 30
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

version of the settlement agreement was filed as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Jason Rathod, 

Docket No. 143-1, and its terms were incorporated into the Final Approval Order and Judgment, 

see generally Docket No. 184. In the Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Court ordered LBN 

to take certain actions pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, which include the 

following: 

First, the Court ordered LBN to provide to the members of the settlement class and 

subclasses, which are defined in the settlement agreement and the Final Approval Order and 

Judgment, with the Settlement Amount1, which consists of consideration whose total monetary 

value is $3,200,000. Docket No. 184 at 10-13; see also Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header pages 

10-11. The Settlement Amount is comprised of the following components: 

1. A Cash Settlement Fund of $750,000, to be distributed on a pro rata basis to the 

members of the Former and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass and 

Sponsor Payments Subclass. Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header page 11. The Court 

required LBN to make payments toward the Cash Settlement Fund based on the 

payment schedule set forth in the settlement agreement.2 Docket No. 184 at 10. 

1

 Capitalized terms are defined in, and have the same meaning as in, the settlement 

agreement. 

2

 Under the payment schedule set forth in the settlement agreement, see Docket No. 143-1 

at ECF header pages 14-15, LBN was required to begin making payments on a weekly basis 

toward the $750,000 Cash Settlement Fund, the $40,000 in incentive awards, and the $800,000 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs on December 1, 2021, if its quarterly revenues met certain 

thresholds relative to its quarterly revenues for 2019. Id. The amount of LBN’s weekly payments 

would be determined starting on December 1, 2021, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, based on 

benchmarks comparing LBN’s current quarterly revenues with its revenues for the same quarter in 

2019. Id. To the extent that LBN’s weekly payments under this payment schedule did not satisfy, 

by January 1, 2023, the cash amounts that LBN owed (i.e., the $750,000 Cash Settlement Fund, 

the $40,000 in incentive awards, and the $800,000 award of attorneys’ fees and costs), then LBN 

would be required to pay the remainder in twelve equal monthly installments beginning on 

January 20, 2023. Id. In response to a motion to enforce the settlement agreement that Plaintiffs 

filed in 2021, the Court, in an order filed on July 30, 2021, clarified the logistics of the payment 

schedule and benchmarks set forth in the settlement agreement on the basis that doing so would 

help enforce and effectuate the settlement agreement. See Docket No. 203 at 8. In relevant part, 

the Court ordered that the quarterly revenue comparisons for determining the amounts that LBN 

must pay on a weekly basis starting on December 1, 2021, shall be made based on financial 

statements for LBN prepared by an external accountant and certified under penalty of perjury by 

counsel for LBN. See id. at 8-9. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 30
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

2. An incentive award to each of the four named plaintiffs of $10,000, for a total of 

$40,000. Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header page 9. The Court required LBN to 

make payments toward the incentive awards based on the payment schedule set 

forth in the settlement agreement. Docket No. 184 at 13. 

3. $800,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid into an escrow account established 

by the settlement administrator, to be distributed to Class Counsel only after the 

members of the Former and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass and 

Sponsor Payments Subclass receive their Cash Settlement Fund distributions. 

Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header page 26. The Court required LBN to pay these 

fees based on the payment schedule set forth in the settlement agreement. Docket 

No. 184 at 12-13. 

4. $80,000 in costs of settlement administration, to be paid in accordance with the 

terms of the settlement agreement. Docket No. 184 at 10. Under the terms of the 

settlement agreement, LBN was required to make an initial deposit of these costs 

within fourteen days of the date on which the Court granted preliminary approval 

of the settlement agreement, and thereafter was required to make periodic payments 

within thirty days of approval by Class Counsel and LBN’s counsel of an invoice 

by the settlement administrator. See Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header page 14. 

5. $1,530,000 for a Debt Relief Fund, which consists of credits that LBN must apply 

to the accounts of members of the Current Program Participant Subclass on a pro 

rata basis according to the terms of the settlement agreement. Docket No. 143-1 at 

ECF header pages 13-14. The Court ordered LBN to apply these credits pursuant 

to the terms of the settlement agreement, Docket No. 184 at 10-11, which, in turn, 

required LBN to apply the credits within twenty days of the date on which the 

Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement, Docket No. 143-1 at ECF 

header page 15. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 30
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Second, the Court ordered LBN, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, to 

provide to members of the Current Program Participant Subclass additional monetary relief in the 

form of: 

1. Discounts of up to twenty percent with respect to monthly recurring fees based on 

whether members of the Current Program Participant Subclass made consecutive 

monthly payments as set forth in the settlement agreement (Consecutive Payment 

Discount). See Docket No. 184 at 11; Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header pages 15-

16. The Consecutive Payment Discount was to be implemented by LBN by the 

later of April 1, 2020, or within twenty days of the Final Settlement Approval Date. 

See Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header page 17. 

2. A reduction of monthly recurring program fees to $415 for each member of the 

Current Program Participant Subclass who paid more than $420 per month and 

made on-time and in-full payments according to the terms of the settlement 

agreement (Timely and In Full Payment Discount). Docket No. 184 at 11; Docket 

No. 143-1 at ECF header page 16. The Timely and In Full Payment Discount was 

to be implemented by LBN by the later of April 1, 2020, or within twenty days of 

the Final Settlement Approval Date. See Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header page 17. 

3. A total payment cap for program payments made by members of the Current 

Program Participant Subclass, excluding the initial payment and set-up fees, to an 

amount not to exceed the face amount of the bond (Total Payment Cap). Docket 

No. 184 at 11; Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header page 16. The Total Payment Cap 

was to be applied to the accounts of Current Program Participant Subclass members 

within twenty days of the date the Court granted preliminary approval of the 

settlement agreement. See Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header pages 16-17. 

Third, the Court ordered LBN, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, to 

provide the settlement class members with a variety of non-monetary benefits. See Docket No. 

184 at 11-12; Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header pages 17-21. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 30
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Pursuant to the settlement agreement’s terms, this Court retained jurisdiction over the 

action and the parties, including to enforce, interpret, and effectuate the settlement agreement and 

the Court’s Final Approval Order and Judgment. Docket No. 184 at 13; Docket No. 143-1 at ECF 

header page 32. 

Since it entered the Final Approval Order and Judgment on February 8, 2021, the Court 

has issued several orders in response to evidence presented by Plaintiffs that LBN has failed to 

comply with the Final Approval Order and Judgment and the terms of the settlement agreement 

incorporated therein. See Order of July 30, 2021, Docket No. 203; Order of November 12, 2021, 

Docket No. 209; Order of January 12, 2022, Docket No. 216. In those orders (hereinafter, the 

enforcement orders), the Court required LBN, among other things, to comply with these 

obligations, to provide Class Counsel with declarations signed under penalty of perjury and 

records sufficient to demonstrate its compliance with the same, and to respond to communications 

from Class Counsel within one business day. Id. The Court also required LBN to pay the 

attorneys’ fees that Plaintiffs incurred in bringing an enforcement motion in July 2021 

($34,142.60). Id. 

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for an order holding LBN in civil contempt and 

imposing civil contempt sanctions on LBN. Docket No. 218. Plaintiffs argued that LBN had not 

complied, or otherwise had not provided them with sufficient documentation to demonstrate its 

compliance, with several key terms of the settlement agreement, the Final Approval Order and 

Judgment that incorporates those terms, and the enforcement orders. Id. 

On September 15, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for an order holding 

LBN in civil contempt. See Tr. of Hr’g, Docket No. 227. During that hearing, counsel for LBN, 

John Shoreman, represented that Donovan, Moore, and Ajin, who attended the hearing, are LBN’s 

“individual principals,” and Donovan, Moore, and Ajin did not dispute that characterization. See 

id. at 3. During the hearing, the Court discussed the various violations of the Final Approval 

Order and Judgment and the enforcement orders which formed the basis of Plaintiffs’ motion, as 

well as the various civil contempt sanctions that the Court was considering imposing on LBN at 

Plaintiffs’ request. See generally id. The Court provided Donovan, Moore, and Ajin with an 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 5 of 30
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

opportunity to make a statement if they wished to do so. Donovan and Ajin declined to make a 

statement; Moore stated: “I look forward to working with Plaintiffs’ counsel to resolve these 

issues.” See id. at 27. 

On October 3, 2022, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part 

Plaintiffs’ motion for an order holding LBN in civil contempt and imposing civil contempt 

sanctions on LBN. Docket No. 224. The Court found that Plaintiffs had met their burden to show 

that LBN had violated the Final Approval Order and Judgment and enforcement orders on 

multiple occasions, by failing to make payments toward the cash amounts it owes under the 

settlement agreement (which total $1,590,000 and are comprised of $750,000 for the Cash 

Settlement Fund, $40,000 for incentive awards for the named plaintiffs, and $800,000 in 

attorneys’ fees and costs for Class Counsel); by failing to pay the costs of settlement 

administration that it still owes ($72,000); by failing to implement the discounts, caps, and credits 

to members of the settlement class and subclasses required under the terms of the settlement 

agreement; and by failing to pay the attorneys’ fees that Plaintiffs incurred in bringing an 

enforcement motion in 2021 ($34,142.60). Id. at 7-24. The Court further found that LBN had not 

pointed to any evidence showing that it took all reasonable steps within its power to comply with 

the Court’s orders. The Court noted that Ajin, on behalf of LBN’s management team, had filed an 

unsworn letter in which he attempted to justify LBN’s lack of compliance with the orders in 

question on the ground that LBN had experienced a significant reduction in revenue as a result of 

the pandemic and shifts in immigration policy. Id. at 6. The Court found that Ajin’s unsworn and 

unsupported letter was insufficient to establish that LBN’s revenues had fallen below the 

thresholds and benchmarks set forth in the settlement agreement’s payment schedule, such that 

LBN could be excused from making payments under that schedule. Id. at 8-9. The Court further 

held that this unsworn and unsupported letter fell short of the Court’s prior orders, which required 

LBN to establish any alleged revenue reduction by way of financial statements prepared by an 

external accountant and certified under penalty of perjury by LBN’s counsel. See id. 

On the same date, October 3, 2022, the Court issued a separate order delineating the civil 

contempt sanctions that it imposed on LBN. Docket No. 225. The Court ordered LBN: 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 6 of 30
7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

1. To pay, within ten business days (October 17, 2022), the cash amounts it owes under 

various terms of the settlement agreement, which total $1,590,000 and are comprised of 

$750,000 for the Cash Settlement Fund, $40,000 for incentive awards for the named 

plaintiffs, and $800,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs for Class Counsel. 

2. To pay, within ten business days (October 17, 2022), the remainder of the $80,000 it owes 

for the costs of settlement administration ($72,000) under the terms of the settlement 

agreement, with interest to be calculated from August 14, 2021, to the present. 

3. To pay, within ten business days (October 17, 2022), the $34,142.60 it owes for Plaintiffs’ 

attorneys’ fees in connection with their 2021 motion to enforce the settlement agreement, 

with interest to be calculated from July 30, 2021, to the present. 

4. To provide Class Counsel business records and documents sufficient to show that LBN has 

implemented the discounts, caps, and credits required under the terms of the settlement 

agreement, namely, the Timely and In Full Payment Discount, the Consecutive Payment 

Discount, the Total Payment Cap, and the Debt Relief Fund credits. The Court ordered 

Class Counsel to identify fifty members of the Current Program Participant Subclass for 

each category of discounts, caps, and credits who were eligible to receive and should have 

received such discounts, caps, and credits. The Court further ordered LBN to provide to 

Class Counsel, within five business days of Class Counsel’s identification of the fifty 

subclass members for each type of discount, cap, and credit (October 18, 2022), billing 

records and other documents sufficient to show that it has implemented the discounts, caps, 

and credits in question, as well as the date of implementation. The Court further ordered 

that the billing records and documents be accompanied by a declaration signed under 

penalty of perjury by LBN’s principals that authenticates the records and documents and 

attests to the truthfulness and accuracy of their contents. 

5. To abstain from referring to any third-party collection agency any alleged debt owed by a 

member of the Current Program Participant Subclass who was eligible to receive the 

Timely and In Full Payment Discount, Consecutive Payment Discount, Total Payment 

Cap, or Debt Relief Fund credits under the terms of the settlement agreement until LBN 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 7 of 30
8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

has demonstrated its compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement requiring it to 

implement the discounts, caps, and credits in question. 

6. To pay, within ten business days (October 17, 2022), $53,021.60 for the attorneys’ fees 

that Plaintiffs incurred in connection with their August 2022 motion for an order holding 

LBN in civil contempt and imposing civil contempt sanctions on LBN. 

7. To pay, to the settlement administrator for the benefit of, and eventual distribution to, 

members of the Former and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass and Sponsor 

Payments Subclass, a coercive fine of $1,000 per day of continued noncompliance as to 

each of the above directives. 

On November 4, 2022, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file a status report 

addressing the status of LBN’s compliance with the Court’s October 3, 2022, orders and the 

anticipated progress of the litigation. Docket No. 228. On November 14, 2022, each side filed a 

status report. 

In their status report, Plaintiffs represented that LBN had not paid the amounts the Court 

ordered it to pay by October 17, 2022, in its orders of October 3, 2022, nor had it provided 

Plaintiffs with the business records and documents sufficient to show that it has implemented each 

of the various discounts, caps, and credits required under the terms of the settlement agreement. 

Docket No. 229. Plaintiffs represented that LBN provided them with partial records relating to its 

implementation of the Debt Relief Fund, and that LBN had not provided them with any documents 

or records showing its implementation of the Total Payment Cap, Timely and In Full Payment 

Discount, and Consecutive Payment Discount. Id. Plaintiffs also stated that they intended to file a 

supplemental motion for civil contempt sanctions against LBN’s principals, and for “an amended 

judgment that includes Defendant’s principals,” by November 23, 2022. Id. 

In its status report, LBN represented that it had sent a payment of $2,000 to the settlement 

administrator and that it would be making weekly payments of $2,000 “until all payments are 

completed.” Docket No. 230. LBN did not attach to its status report any evidence of this 

purported $2,000 payment, and it did not specify which of the several payments it owes under the 

settlement agreement it intends to pay pursuant to its proposed schedule of $2,000 per week. LBN 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 8 of 30
9 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

also represented that, because of the “revenue losses” it has suffered as a result of the pandemic 

and certain immigration enforcement activities, the $2,000 weekly amount was the “maximum 

amount of money” that it could pay pursuant to the settlement agreement while continuing to 

operate. Id. Although the Court required LBN in several of its prior orders to provide Plaintiffs 

with financial statements prepared by an external accountant and certified under penalty of perjury 

by counsel for LBN to substantiate any of its representations regarding its decreased revenues, see, 

e.g., Docket No. 224 at 2 n.2, Docket No. 203 at 8, LBN did not attach any such statements to its 

status report. LBN represented that it was “in the process of preparing financial documentation 

that show” its revenues for the preceding five years, but it did not provide a date by which it 

would file such documentation. Id. As of the date of this order, LBN has neither produced to 

Plaintiffs nor filed on the docket any financial documentation prepared by an external accountant 

and certified under penalty of perjury by counsel for LBN showing its revenues. 

LBN also represented in its status report that it made a partial production of the documents 

and records pertaining to the Debt Relief Fund that the Court ordered it to produce to Class 

Counsel in its October 3, 2022, orders, and that it would complete its production of documents and 

records relating to the Debt Relief Fund, as ordered by the Court, in two weeks. Id. at 2. It also 

represented that it would “produce the remaining reports,” presumably those showing its 

implementation of the remaining discounts, caps, and credits required under the settlement 

agreement (i.e., Total Payment Cap, Timely and In Full Payment Discount, and Consecutive 

Payment Discount), “on a rolling basis” with “complete production by January 30, 2023.” Id. 

LBN represented that the delay in producing the documents and records the Court ordered it to 

produce in its October 3, 2022, orders was caused by the fact that its records are not in an 

“exportable format.” Id. The Court asked during the hearing held on January 19, 2023, whether 

LBN had produced any additional documents and records since its initial partial production 

relating to the Debt Relief Fund, and neither LBN, nor Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, responded that 

LBN had made any subsequent productions. 

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for an order to hold the principals of LBN in 

civil contempt, which is the motion now before the Court. Docket No. 232. Plaintiffs contend 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 9 of 30
10 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

that LBN has failed to comply in all respects with the Court’s October 3, 2022, orders, and they 

request that the Court hold Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in civil contempt for LBN’s noncompliance 

with such orders, as well as the enforcement orders whose violations by LBN were the basis of the 

Court’s imposition of civil contempt sanctions on LBN. Plaintiffs argue that Donovan, Ajin, and 

Moore, as officers and principals of LBN, are legally identified with LBN, had notice of such 

orders, and were the “architects of LBN’s” noncompliance with such orders. Id. Plaintiffs’ 

counsel, Jason S. Rathod, filed a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion, in which he testified 

that LBN has failed to make any payments required under the Court’s October 3, 2022, orders, and 

that LBN has failed to provide Class Counsel the documents and business records sufficient to 

show that LBN has implemented each of the discounts, caps, and credits required under the 

settlement agreement. Rathod Decl.. ¶¶ 4-5. Rathod testified that LBN has only provided Class 

Counsel with documents and records for twenty-five out of fifty class members that Class Counsel 

identified in connection with the Debt Relief Fund. Id. Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an 

order requiring Donovan, Ajin, and Moore to pay the attorneys’ fees they incurred in filing the 

present motion, the 2021 enforcement motion, and the August 2022 contempt motion with respect 

to LBN; a $1,000 per-day fine for further noncompliance with the requirement that LBN provide 

to Class Counsel documents sufficient to show its implementation of the discounts, caps, and 

credits required under the settlement agreement; an order that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore be 

immediately imprisoned; and “an amended judgment that includes the LBN Principals along with 

LBN and makes clear that the LBN Principals are also obligated by the original February 8, 2021 

Class Action Judgment in this Action,” such that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore are liable, on a joint 

and several basis with LBN, for the amounts that LBN owes under the settlement agreement. See

Docket No. 232 at 1. 

December 7, 2022, was the deadline for filing a response to Plaintiffs’ motion, and no 

response was filed. 

On December 12, 2022, the Court issued an order to show cause why civil contempt 

sanctions should not be imposed on Donovan, Ajin, and Moore. Docket No. 236. The Court 

ordered Donovan, Ajin, and Moore to file a response to its order to show cause that was supported 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 10 of 30
11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

by admissible evidence no later than December 27, 2022. Id. Additionally, the Court ordered 

counsel for LBN to serve a copy of the Court’s order to show cause on Donovan, Ajin, and Moore 

within one business day of the date of the order and to file a declaration attesting to that within 

two business days thereafter. Id. 

On December 14, 2022, Mr. Shoreman, counsel for LBN, filed a declaration that provides: 

I, John M. Shoreman, counsel to Defendant Libre by Nexus, Inc. 

(“LBN”), pursuant to the Court’s Order to Show Cause of 

December 12, 2022 [Dkt. 236] (the “Order”), hereby attest and 

declare under the penalties of perjury that on December 13, 2022, I 

served a copy of the Order on Micheal Donovan, Evan Ajin and 

Richard Moore via e-mail. Please be advised that Richard Moore 

is no longer an officer or director of LBN and owns no interest in 

the company. 

Docket No. 237. Also on December 14, 2022, Kenneth E. Payson, counsel for LBN, filed a 

declaration in which he testified that he sent a copy of the order to show cause to Donovan, Ajin, 

and Moore at the email addresses that his law firm has on file and through which he and his law 

firm have communicated with Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in the past. Docket No. 238. Mr. 

Payson further declared that he copied on that email “LBN’s acting outside general counsel, 

Michael Song of Feldmann Nagel Cantagio & Song PLLC, and LBN’s other counsel of record, 

John Shoreman, Mohammed Aly, Mario Williams, Mary Donne Peters, and Michael Gorby at the 

current email addresses in the Court’s online docket for those counsel of record.” Id. Mr. Payson 

further declared that he “received an automated response to [his] email indicating Mr. Aly was no 

longer reachable at his email address listed in the Court’s online docket” and “did not otherwise 

receive any notification of unsuccessful delivery of [his] email referenced above.” Id. 

On January 7, 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to file a reply in support 

of their motion for civil contempt sanctions by January 17, 2023. Docket. No. 239. The Court 

tentatively found that Plaintiffs had made the requisite showing for the imposition of civil 

contempt sanctions with respect to Donovan and Ajin, particularly given that Donovan and Ajin 

had not filed any response to Plaintiffs’ motion or the Court’s order to show cause and had not 

attempted to refute any of Plaintiffs’ arguments or evidence. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to 

address in their reply the impact of Mr. Shoreman’s declaration that Moore is no longer an officer, 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 11 of 30
12 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

director, or owner of LBN, on whether civil contempt sanctions can be imposed on him for the 

violations of the Court’s orders addressed in Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court also ordered Plaintiffs 

to cite supporting authority for their request for an amended judgment that would make Donovan, 

Ajin, and Moore liable for LBN’s obligations under the settlement agreement. 

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their present motion. There, they 

argue that Mr. Shoreman’s statement in his December 14, 2022, declaration that Moore is no 

longer an officer, director, or owner of LBN is not evidence because it is “conspicuously not stated 

under penalty of perjury.” Docket No. 241 at 2. Plaintiffs argue that, in contrast, the preceding 

statement in Mr. Shoreman’s declaration was under penalty of perjury; it provides that Mr. 

Shoreman “attest[s] and declare[s] under the penalties of perjury that on December 13, 2022, [he] 

served a copy of the Order [to show cause] on Micheal Donovan, Evan Ajin and Richard Moore 

via e-mail.” See Docket No. 237. Plaintiffs further contend that, even if Mr. Shoreman’s 

statement regarding Moore’s role at LBN were under penalty of perjury, the Court should give it 

no weight because Mr. Shoreman did not include any facts in his declaration to demonstrate that 

he has personal knowledge of Moore’s status at LBN, nor did he attach any supporting 

documentary evidence. Docket No. 241 at 2-3. Plaintiffs also argue that, even if it were the case 

that Moore is no longer a de jure officer of LBN, they have pointed to evidence showing that he 

was a de facto officer of LBN at all relevant times, as he had control over LBN’s ability to comply 

with the Court’s orders. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs cited authorities, which they claim support their 

request for an amended judgment that would make Donovan, Ajin, and Moore liable on a joint and 

several basis with LBN for LBN’s obligations under the settlement agreement. 

On January 19, 2023, a few hours before the hearing scheduled for the same date at 2:30 

p.m., an application to appear pro hac vice was filed by Zachary Lawrence, who purported to 

represent Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in that application. Docket No. 242. Mr. Lawrence 

identified Joshua Matic as his local co-counsel. Civil Local Rule 11-3(a)(3) requires that the 

designated local co-counsel in an application to appear pro hac vice be a member of the bar of the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California in good standing. Because 

Mr. Matic is not a member of the bar of this Court, the Court denied Mr. Lawrence’s application 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 12 of 30
13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

to appear pro hac vice without prejudice to re-filing once Mr. Lawrence can identify local cocounsel who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing. Docket No. 244. 

A few minutes before the January 19, 2023, hearing began, the Court’s courtroom deputy 

received an email from Donovan, in which he copied counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for LBN, 

as well as Zachary Lawrence and Joshua Matic. In his email, Donovan requested a fourteen-day 

continuance of the proceedings relating to the present motion so that Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Matic 

could attempt to satisfy the requirements of this district for making an appearance as counsel for 

Donovan, Ajin, and Moore and could, thereafter, begin to assist Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in 

bringing LBN into compliance with the Court’s orders. Donovan indicated that he, Ajin, and 

Moore could not begin the process of bringing LBN into compliance with the Court’s orders until 

they could obtain legal assistance, which Donovan represented they currently do not have. 

During the hearing held on January 19, 2023, the Court denied Donovan’s last-minute 

request for a continuance of the proceedings on the ground that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore had 

had notice of the present motion since November 2022 and of the Court’s order to show cause 

since December 13, 2022, and, therefore, they had had several weeks during which they could 

have filed a response to the present motion or shown good cause for continuing the proceedings. 

The Court also took into account Mr. Shoreman’s representation during the January 19, 2023, 

hearing that LBN, as well as Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, receive legal advice from corporate 

attorney Michael Song. Mr. Shoreman’s statements undermine the credibility of Donovan’s 

statements in his email to the courtroom deputy prior to the hearing, and during the January 19, 

2023, hearing, that LBN’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders is the result of a lack of legal 

assistance. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Civil contempt “consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by 

failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” Inst. of Cetacean Rsch. v. 

Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 774 F.3d 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). In a civil 

contempt action, “[t]he moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence 

that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court. The burden then shifts to 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 13 of 30
14 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” Fed. Trade Comm’n v. 

Enforma Nat. Prod., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

“An order to a corporation binds those who are legally responsible for the conduct of its 

affairs.” United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 535 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, a non-party 

can be held in civil contempt for a corporate defendant’s violations of a court order where (1) the 

non-party either aids and abets the defendant in violating the court order or is legally identified 

with the defendant, and (2) the non-party has notice of the court order. See Peterson v. Highland 

Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1323-24 (9th Cir. 1998), as amended on denial of reh’g and reh’g en 

banc (June 15, 1998) (“[T]o be held liable in contempt, it is necessary that a non-party respondent 

must either abet the defendant [in violating the court’s order] or be legally identified with him, and 

that the non-party have notice of the order[.]”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Remedies that (1) “coerce compliance with a court order” or (2) are “meant to compensate 

the complainant for actual losses” fall within the scope of civil contempt sanctions. See Ahearn ex 

rel. N.L.R.B. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Locals 21 & 4, 721 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th 

Cir. 2013) (“[A] sanction generally is civil if it coerces compliance with a court order or is a 

remedial sanction meant to compensate the complainant for actual losses.”) (citation omitted). In 

contrast with criminal contempt sanctions, “civil contempt sanctions, or those penalties designed 

to compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable 

through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an 

opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.” 

Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994). “[A]lthough the 

district court generally must impose the minimum sanction necessary to secure compliance . . . the 

district court retains discretion to establish appropriate sanctions[.]” United States v. Bright, 596 

F.3d 683, 696 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted). Where “the affidavits offered in support 

of a finding of [civil] contempt are uncontroverted,” a district court is not required to hold an 

evidentiary hearing. See Peterson, 140 F.3d at 1324 (“[W]here, as here, the affidavits offered in 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 14 of 30
15 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

support of a finding of contempt are uncontroverted, we have held that a district court’s decision 

not to hold a full-blown evidentiary hearing does not violate due process.”). 

III. DISCUSSION 

As noted, Plaintiffs contend that LBN failed to comply with the Court’s orders of October 

3, 2022, and they move for an order holding Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in civil contempt for 

LBN’s violations of such orders, as well as LBN’s violations of prior orders that led to the Court’s 

imposition of civil contempt sanctions on LBN on October 3, 2022 (hereinafter, collectively, the 

orders at issue). Plaintiffs contend that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore can be held in civil contempt 

for LBN’s violations of the orders at issue because they are legally identified with LBN and had 

notice of the orders at issue. Plaintiffs supported their motion with the declaration of their 

counsel, Jason S. Rathod, to which various exhibits are attached.3 See Docket No. 232-1. 

Donovan, Ajin, and Moore did not file a response to Plaintiffs’ motion or to the Court’s 

order to show cause of December 12, 2022. 

For Donovan, Ajin, and Moore to be held in civil contempt for LBN’s violations of the 

orders at issue, Plaintiffs first must establish that the orders at issue were violated by LBN. 

Plaintiffs then must show that the elements of the Peterson test are satisfied. See Peterson, 140 

F.3d at 1323-24 (holding that a non-party can be held in civil contempt for a corporate defendant’s 

violations of a court order where (1) the non-party either aids and abets the defendant in violating 

the court’s order or is legally identified with the defendant, and (2) the non-party has notice of the 

court order). 

3

 Those exhibits are: declarations that Donovan and Ajin previously filed in this action, in 

which Donovan and Ajin identified themselves as officers and principals of LBN; email threads in 

which Class Counsel corresponded with Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in connection with LBN’s 

obligations under the settlement agreement and the Court’s orders; and LBN’s March 2021 

Annual Report filed with the State of Virginia and signed by Donovan on March 20, 2021, which 

states that Donovan is LBN’s President, Ajin is LBN’s Vice President, and Moore is LBN’s Vice 

President and Executive Director. See Docket No. 232-1. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 15 of 30
16 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

A. Whether LBN violated the orders at issue 

Plaintiffs argue that LBN violated and continues to be in violation of the Court’s orders of 

October 3, 2022, as well as prior orders that led to the Court’s imposition of civil contempt 

sanctions on LBN on October 3, 2022. 

Class Counsel Jason S. Rathod testified in his declaration that LBN is in violation of the 

Court’s orders of October 3, 2022, because (1) LBN has not paid the cash amounts it owes under 

the settlement agreement ($1,590,000 total), even though the Court ordered LBN to pay them by 

October 17, 2022; (2) LBN has not paid the costs of settlement administration that it still owes 

under the settlement agreement ($72,000 with interest to be calculated from August 14, 2021, to 

the present),4 even though the Court ordered LBN to pay them by October 17, 2022; (3) LBN has 

not paid the attorneys’ fees that Plaintiffs incurred in bringing prior motions (namely, $34,142.60 

with interest to be calculated from July 30, 2021, to the present for Plaintiffs’ 2021 motion to 

enforce the settlement agreement, and $53,021.60 for Plaintiffs’ August 2022 motion to hold LBN 

in civil contempt and for an order imposing civil contempt sanctions on LBN), which the Court 

ordered LBN to pay by October 17, 2022; and (4) LBN has not paid the $1,000 per-day coercive 

fine for each day of noncompliance with each directive set forth in the Court’s orders of October 

3, 2022, which total $174,000 as of November 22, 2022, see Rathod Decl. ¶ 2, Docket No. 232-1. 

Mr. Rathod also testified in his declaration that LBN is in violation of the Court’s October 3, 

2022, orders because LBN failed to provide Class Counsel the documents and business records 

sufficient to show that LBN has implemented each of the discounts, caps, and credits required 

under the settlement agreement, which LBN was required to do by October 18, 2022. Mr. Rathod 

declares that LBN has provided Class Counsel with documents and records for only twenty-five 

out of fifty class members that Class Counsel identified in connection with the Debt Relief Fund, 

4

 As noted above, LBN represented in its November 14, 2022, status report that it paid 

$2,000 toward the costs of settlement administration that it owes, but it filed no evidence to 

support that representation. In light of LBN’s failure to proffer any evidence to demonstrate that 

it, in fact, made a $2,000 payment to the settlement administrator, the Court finds that LBN has 

not made any payments toward the $72,000 in costs of settlement administration it owes. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 16 of 30
17 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

and that LBN has not produced any documents for any of the other discounts, caps, and credits 

that it is supposed to implement. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. 

Because Donovan, Ajin, and Moore have not filed any evidence to contradict the 

declaration of Jason S. Rathod with respect to the alleged violations of the orders of October 3, 

2022, despite the Court’s order to show cause ordering them to do so, the Court may treat as true 

the facts set forth in that declaration. See Peterson, 140 F.3d at 1324 (“A trial court may in a 

contempt proceeding narrow the issues by requiring that affidavits on file be controverted by 

counter-affidavits and may thereafter treat as true the facts set forth in uncontroverted affidavits.”). 

The uncontroverted facts in the Rathod declaration establish LBN’s noncompliance with the 

Court’s October 3, 2022, orders; accordingly, the burden shifts to LBN to show that it took all 

reasonable steps to comply with such orders. Inst. of Cetacean Rsch., 774 F.3d at 945. Neither 

LBN nor Donovan, Ajin, and Moore have filed any evidence showing that LBN took all 

reasonable steps to comply with the Court’s October 3, 2022, orders.5 Accordingly, the Court 

finds that LBN violated and continues to be in violation of the Court’s October 3, 2022, orders. 

Plaintiffs also argue that this Court found in its orders of October 3, 2022, that LBN 

violated other orders issued prior to October 3, 2021, on multiple occasions; such violations were 

the basis for this Court’s imposition of civil contempt sanctions on LBN on October 3, 2022. The 

Court agrees with Plaintiffs and incorporates here by reference its findings in its October 3, 2022, 

orders that LBN violated the Final Approval Order and Judgment and the enforcement orders of 

July and November 2021, and January 2022, on multiple occasions, and that LBN failed to show 

that it took all reasonable steps to comply with its obligations under such orders. See generally

Docket Nos. 224, 225. 

5

 As noted above, LBN’s status report of November 14, 2022, states that LBN’s 

purportedly reduced revenues prevent it from complying with the Court’s orders of October 3, 

2022, but LBN did not attach any financial statements or other evidence on which the Court could 

find that the state of its revenues make it impossible for it to comply with the Court’s orders. The 

Court has ordered LBN on multiple occasions to produce to Class Counsel financial statements 

generated by an external accountant and signed by LBN counsel under penalty of perjury showing 

its revenues, see, e.g., Docket No. 224 at 2 n.2, Docket No. 203 at 8, but it has not done so. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 17 of 30
18 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that LBN violated and continues to be in 

violation of the Court’s orders of October 3, 2022, as well as prior orders that led to the Court’s 

imposition of civil contempt sanctions on LBN on October 3, 2022. 

B. Whether Donovan, Ajin, and Moore can be held in civil contempt for LBN’s 

violations of the orders at issue 

As noted, under Peterson, a non-party can be held in civil contempt for a corporate 

defendant’s violations of a court order where (1) the non-party either aids and abets the defendant 

in violating the court order or is legally identified with the defendant, and (2) the non-party has 

notice of the court order. See 140 F.3d at 1323-24. 

Plaintiffs contend that the first prong of the Peterson test is met because Donovan, Ajin, 

and Moore are “legally identified” with LBN. A non-party is legally identified with a defendant 

corporate entity and is, therefore, bound by orders issued to the defendant corporate entity where 

there is evidence that the non-party was “responsible for the conduct of [the defendant corporate 

entity’s] affairs,” such as where there is evidence that the non-party was a de facto or de jure 

officer of the defendant corporate entity. See Laurins, 857 F.2d at 535 (“De facto as well as de 

jure officers are responsible for enabling a corporation to comply with orders directed to it.”); 

N.L.R.B. v. Sequoia Dist. Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, 568 F.2d 628, 633 & n.11 (9th Cir. 

1977) (holding that non-parties were “legally identified” with a defendant corporate entity (a 

union) and were bound by orders issued to that defendant corporate entity because they served as 

the entity’s “principal officers,” as they were “Executive Secretary” and “Business Agent/District 

Manager,” respectively). 

Here, Plaintiffs have pointed to evidence showing that Donovan and Ajin are officers and 

principals of LBN and have had, at all relevant times, control over LBN’s compliance with the 

orders at issue. Donovan and Ajin filed declarations in this action in which they testified that they 

are, respectively, LBN’s Chief Executive Officer and controlling principal and LBN’s Corporate 

Secretary and principal, and in which they made representations indicating that they have control 

over LBN’s compliance with the Court’s orders and settlement agreement. See, e.g., Docket No. 

210 (declaration by Micheal Donovan executed on November 18, 2021, in which he testified that 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 18 of 30
19 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

he is “the Chief Executive Officer and controlling principal of defendant Libre by Nexus, Inc.” 

and made representations as to the actions that LBN would take to comply with the settlement 

agreement and the Court’s orders); Docket No. 213 (declaration by Evan Ajin executed on 

November 29, 2021, in which he represented that he is the “Corporate Secretary and a principal of 

defendant Libre by Nexus, Inc.” and made representations as to the actions that LBN would take 

to comply with the settlement agreement and Court’s orders, which he is “personally involved in 

supervising”). Plaintiffs also point to the transcript of the hearing held on September 15, 2022, 

before the undersigned. During that hearing, Mr. Shoreman identified Donovan, Ajin, and Moore 

as LBN’s “individual principals,” and none of them disputed Mr. Shoreman’s characterization. 

See Tr. of Hr’g at 3, Docket No. 227. Plaintiffs also point to the fact that Donovan executed the 

settlement agreement on behalf of LBN, Docket No. 143-1 at ECF header page 38, and to email 

correspondence between Class Counsel and Ajin in which Ajin made representations to Class 

Counsel on behalf of LBN indicating that he had control over LBN’s compliance with the 

settlement agreement and the Court’s orders. See Rathod Decl. ¶¶ 4, 14 & Ex. 1, 7. Based on the 

foregoing, which Donovan and Ajin have not disputed, the Court finds that Donovan and Ajin are 

“legally identified” with LBN and were bound by each of the orders at issue. This satisfies the 

first prong of the Peterson test with respect to Donovan and Ajin. See Sequoia, 568 F.2d at 633 & 

n.11; Laurins, 857 F.2d at 535. 

With respect to Moore, Plaintiffs point to a March 2021 annual report filed by LBN with 

the State of Virginia, which states that Moore was LBN’s Vice President and Executive Director at 

the time of that report’s filing. See Rathod Decl. ¶ 12 & Ex. 5. Plaintiffs also point to email 

correspondence in which Ajin and Moore made representations to Class Counsel in 2021 

indicating that Moore had control over LBN’s ability to comply with the settlement agreement and 

the Court’s orders. See, e.g., Rathod Decl. ¶ 14 & Ex. 7 (email chain from September and October 

2021 in which Moore stated to Class Counsel that he was taking actions to facilitate LBN’s 

compliance with the settlement agreement and the Court’s orders, and in which Moore was 

identified by Ajin as a person with authority to resolve disputes on behalf of LBN as to LBN’s 

obligations under the settlement agreement and the Court’s orders). Plaintiffs also point to the 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 19 of 30
20 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

transcript of the hearing held on September 15, 2022, before the undersigned, during which Mr. 

Shoreman identified Moore as one of LBN’s “individual principals.” See Tr. of Hr’g at 3, Docket 

No. 227. Moore did not dispute that characterization during the hearing; to the contrary, Moore 

made a statement that implied that he had responsibility for the conduct of LBN’s affairs in the 

context of LBN’s compliance with the Court’s orders, namely “I look forward to working with 

Plaintiffs’ counsel to resolve these issues.” See id. at 27. During the hearing held on January 19, 

2023, Moore stated that he negotiated with Plaintiffs, on behalf of LBN, with respect to disputes 

as to LBN’s compliance with the Court’s orders, and he did not dispute that he continues to have 

responsibility for the conduct of LBN’s affairs in the context of LBN’s compliance with the 

Court’s orders. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Moore is “legally identified” with 

LBN and was bound by each of the orders at issue. This satisfies the first prong of the Peterson

test with respect to Moore. See Sequoia, 568 F.2d at 633 & n.11; Laurins, 857 F.2d at 535. 

Mr. Shoreman’s unsupported statement in a declaration he filed on December 14, 2022, 

that Moore is “no longer an officer or director of LBN and owns no interest in the company,” see

Docket No. 237, does not alter this conclusion. The Court gives no weight to Mr. Shoreman’s 

statement regarding Moore because it is not clearly under penalty of perjury, and because 

Mr. Shoreman did not provide a factual basis in his declaration showing that he has personal 

knowledge of Moore’s status at LBN. Additionally, Mr. Shoreman’s statement contradicts LBN’s 

March 2021 filing with the State of Virginia. Mr. Shoreman did not attach to his declaration any 

documents filed by LBN with the State of Virginia showing that Moore is no longer an officer, 

director, or owner of LBN. 

The second prong of the Peterson test requires that the non-party had notice of the orders 

that the defendant corporate entity violated. Peterson, 140 F.3d at 1323-24. Where, as here, the 

non-parties who are the subject of a motion for civil contempt sanctions are legally identified with 

a defendant corporate entity, the non-parties are deemed to have had notice of the orders that the 

defendant violated as of the date the orders were served on the defendant’s attorney. See Sequoia, 

568 F.2d at 633 (holding that, “[w]hen the order was served on [a union’s] attorney, the [union] 

was clearly bound to abide by it,” as were the union’s “principal officers” who were legally 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 20 of 30
21 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

identified with it, because “[a] command to a corporation is in effect a command to those who are 

officially responsible for the conduct of its affairs”). Evidence of actual notice is not required 

unless the non-parties subject to a motion for civil contempt sanctions are not “legally identified” 

with the defendant corporate entity that violated the order in question.6 See id. (“Those not 

identified with a party, but in active concert or participation with him, are bound only with actual 

notice.”). Here, each of the orders at issue was served electronically on LBN’s attorneys via ECF 

at the same time that the orders were posted on the docket. See Civil L.R. 5-1(g) (providing that, 

upon the posting of an order in ECF, the ECF system will send to the registered attorneys for all 

parties in the case a Notice of Electronic Filing, which constitutes service on the receiving party). 

Accordingly, Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, as persons legally identified with LBN at all relevant 

times, had notice of the orders of October 3, 2022, and the enforcement orders, as of the date they 

were posted on the docket. See Sequoia, 568 F.2d at 633. That is sufficient to satisfy the second 

prong of the Peterson test with respect to Donovan, Ajin, and Moore. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds and concludes that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore can 

be held in civil contempt under Peterson for LBN’s violations of the orders of October 3, 2022, 

and the enforcement orders of July and November 2021 and January 2022. 

6

 Although evidence of actual notice is not required in light of the Court’s finding that 

Donovan, Ajin, and Moore were legally identified with LBN at all relevant times, the record 

contains evidence indicating that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore had actual notice of the orders at 

issue. For example, Plaintiffs filed email correspondence that was sent to and received by 

Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, on the one hand, and Class Counsel, on the other hand, in which 

LBN’s obligations under the enforcement orders and settlement agreement were discussed. See, 

e.g., Rathod Decl. ¶¶ 4, 14 & Ex. 1, 7. Further, as discussed above, Donovan and Ajin filed 

declarations discussing LBN’s obligations under the enforcement orders and settlement 

agreement. See, e.g., Docket Nos. 210, 213. Additionally, Donovan, Ajin, and Moore attended 

the September 15, 2022, hearing, during which LBN’s obligations under, and violations of, the 

enforcement orders were discussed at length, as were the coercive and remedial civil contempt 

sanctions that the Court was considering imposing on LBN, which were later described in more 

detail in its orders of October 3, 2022. See generally Docket No. 227. Further, counsel for LBN 

declared that they emailed to Donovan, Ajin, and Moore a copy of the Court’s order to show cause 

of December 12, 2022, which referred to the orders at issue. The foregoing is sufficient to find 

that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore had actual notice of the orders at issue. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 21 of 30
22 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

C. Appropriateness of civil contempt sanctions requested by Plaintiffs 

The Court next examines whether the sanctions that Plaintiffs request fall within the scope 

of civil contempt sanctions. As noted, remedies that (1) “coerce compliance with a court order” or 

(2) are “meant to compensate the complainant for actual losses” fall within the scope of civil 

contempt sanctions. See Ahearn, 721 F.3d at 1129. 

Plaintiffs request that the Court impose civil contempt sanctions on Donovan, Ajin, and 

Moore in the form of an order requiring them to pay immediately, on a joint and several basis: 

1. the attorneys’ fees that Plaintiffs incurred for the present motion for civil contempt 

sanctions against Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, which total $74,952.00, with a $1,000 

per-day fine for each day of noncompliance; 

2. the attorneys’ fees that Plaintiffs incurred for the enforcement motion they brought in 

2021, namely $34,142.60, with interest from July 30, 2021, to the present, and a $1,000 

per-day fine for each day of noncompliance after October 17, 2022; 

3. Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for the motion for civil contempt sanctions they brought in 

August 2022, namely $53,021.60, with interest from October 17, 2022, to the present, 

and a $1,000 per-day fine for each day of noncompliance after October 17, 2022; 

4. a $1,000 per-day fine for each day of noncompliance after October 18, 2022, for a 

failure to provide to Class Counsel documents sufficient to show LBN’s 

implementation of the discounts, caps, and credits required under the settlement 

agreement; 

5. an order that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore be immediately imprisoned until they and 

LBN have purged their contempt of court; 

6. “$1,590,000 for the parties’ class action settlement,” with a $1,000 per-day fine for 

each day of noncompliance after October 17, 2022; and 

7. $72,000, which are the costs of settlement administration that LBN still owes under the 

terms of the settlement agreement, with a $1,000 per-day fine for each day of 

noncompliance after October 17, 2022. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 22 of 30
23 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

See Proposed Order, Docket No. 232-3. Plaintiffs’ request in connection with items 6 and 7, 

above, is in the form of “an amended judgment that includes the LBN Principals along with LBN 

and makes clear that the LBN Principals are also obligated by the original February 8, 2021 Class 

Action Judgment in this Action[.]” See Docket No. 232 at 1. 

First, the Court finds that the attorneys’ fees that Plaintiffs request for the work that Class 

Counsel performed in connection with the present motion (item 1, above) are an appropriate 

remedial civil contempt sanction with respect to Donovan, Ajin, and Moore. See Perry v. 

O’Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 705 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that a district court has discretion “to 

analyze each contempt case individually and decide whether an award of fees and expenses is 

appropriate as a remedial measure” and that a finding of “willful” disobedience with a court order 

is not required for a district court to award fees and costs as a remedial measure in civil contempt 

proceedings). Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, as officers and 

principals of LBN at all relevant times, were bound by, and had control over LBN’s ability to 

comply with, the Court’s orders of October 3, 2022, the violations of which necessitated the filing 

of the present motion. The Court finds that the lodestar that Plaintiffs have requested, namely 

$74,9527, is fair and reasonable in light of the results that Class Counsel obtained in the context of 

the present motion, the quality of the representation, the contingent nature of their compensation, 

and the fact that Class Counsel’s payment will be delayed until members of the settlement classes 

receive their compensation under the terms of the settlement agreement. Donovan, Ajin, and 

7

 Annick Persinger, who is counsel for Plaintiffs, declares that the $74,952 that Plaintiffs 

request in attorneys’ fees for the present motion is the product of 101.4 hours that Class Counsel 

spent collectively on the present motion, billed at a rate of $829 per hour based on the Laffey 

Matrix for the work of Annick Persinger (37.2 hours, for a lodestar of $30,838.80), Jason Rathod 

(7.3 hours, for a lodestar of $6,051.70), and Jesse Newark (27.4 hours, for a lodestar of 

$22,714.60), and at the rate of $508 per hour based on the Laffey Matrix for the work of Cameron 

Partovi (29.5 hours, for a lodestar of $14,986). Persinger Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Docket No. 232-2. The 

Laffey Matrix is “a widely recognized compilation of attorney and paralegal rates based on 

various levels of experience” upon which courts, including those in this district, routinely rely to 

determine the reasonableness of attorney hourly rates. See Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. 

Mktg. FSI, Inc., 731 F. Supp. 2d 937, 948 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The Court finds that the requested 

hourly rates of $829 and $508 are reasonable in light of the Laffey Matrix and Class Counsel’s 

experience and the fact that LBN, Donovan, Ajin, and Moore did not object to the requested 

hourly rates. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 23 of 30
24 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Moore did not challenge the reasonableness of Class Counsel’s requested hours or hourly rates 

and they, therefore, waived any objections to the same. See id. at 706 (finding that party held in 

civil contempt waived objections to reasonableness of requested attorneys’ fees and costs because 

it “failed to challenge the reasonableness of the amount of the fee award requested before the 

district court”). The Court will order that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore pay these fees, on a joint and 

several basis, within ten business days of the date of this order. 

Second, the Court finds that the attorneys’ fees that Plaintiffs incurred for the work that 

Class Counsel performed in connection with the enforcement motion they brought in 2021 

($34,142.60 with interest from July 30, 2021, to the present) (item 2, above), and their August 

2022 motion for an order holding LBN in civil contempt ($53,021.60, with interest from October 

17, 2022, to the present) (item 3, above), which LBN has not paid despite the Court’s October 3, 

2022, orders, are an appropriate remedial civil contempt sanction against Donovan, Ajin, and 

Moore, as Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, as officers and principals 

of LBN at all relevant times, were bound by, and had control over LBN’s ability to comply with, 

the enforcement orders of July and November 2021 and January 2022, the violations of which 

necessitated the filing of those motions. See generally Docket No. 224 (finding LBN in violation 

of orders issued in July 2021, November 2021, and January 2022). The Court will order that 

Donovan, Ajin, and Moore pay these fees, with interest based on the dates indicated above, on a 

joint and several basis with LBN, within ten business days of the date of this order. 

Third, the Court finds that a $1,000 per-day fine for each day that Donovan, Ajin, and 

Moore fail to pay the attorneys’ fees discussed above, starting from ten business days from the 

date of this order, would be an appropriate coercive sanction. Donovan, Ajin, and Moore’s failure 

to respond to Plaintiffs’ present motion or to the Court’s order to show cause does not prevent the 

Court from imposing coercive monetary sanctions. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling 

Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1481 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that, while “the district court should 

ordinarily take [the contemnor’s] financial position into account” before imposing coercive 

monetary sanctions, the district court is not precluded from imposing coercive monetary sanctions 

“[w]here the contemnor is the only one who possesses the relevant financial information, and 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 24 of 30
25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

chooses not to disclose it”; in that case, the contemnor’s “failure to present any evidence on the 

record may not be charged either against the [opposing party] or result in a holding that the district 

court abused its discretion in imposing the sanction”) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). These coercive fines, which the Court finds will incentivize Donovan, Ajin, and Moore 

to comply with the Court’s orders, shall be paid to the settlement administrator for the benefit of, 

and eventual distribution to8, members of the Former and Current Program Participant Payments 

Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass. 

Fourth, the Court finds that a $1,000 per-day fine for each day after this order is filed that 

LBN fails to provide, pursuant to the Court’s orders of October 3, 2022, documents and records to 

Class Counsel sufficient to show LBN’s implementation of the discounts, caps, and credits 

required under the settlement agreement (item 4, above), also would be an appropriate coercive 

civil contempt sanction with respect to Donovan, Ajin, and Moore. The Court has found that these 

individuals continue to be officers and principals of LBN and continue to have control over LBN’s 

compliance with the Court’s orders of October 3, 2022, including the requirement in those orders 

that LBN produce documents sufficient to show its implementation of the discounts, caps, and 

credits in question. These fines, which the Court finds will incentivize Donovan, Ajin, and Moore 

to bring LBN into compliance with the Court’s orders, shall be paid to the settlement administrator 

for the benefit of, and eventual distribution to, members of the Former and Current Program 

Participant Payments Subclass and Sponsor Payments Subclass. 

Fifth, the Court declines, at this juncture, to issue an order that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore 

be immediately imprisoned, as Plaintiffs request (item 5, above). 

Finally, as noted, Plaintiffs request the entry of an amended judgment that makes 

Donovan, Ajin, and Moore liable, on a joint and several basis with LBN, for the cash amounts that 

LBN owes under the settlement agreement ($1,590,000), and the $72,000 for costs of settlement 

8

 The distribution of any fines collected by the settlement administrator for the benefit of 

members of the Former and Current Program Participant Payments Subclass and Sponsor 

Payments Subclasses pursuant to this order shall be effectuated pursuant to the distribution plan 

set forth in the settlement agreement for the Cash Settlement Fund. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 25 of 30
26 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

administration that LBN still owes under the settlement agreement (items 6 and 7, above). The 

authorities that Plaintiffs cite in their opening brief do not support granting that request. Those 

authorities provide that a new, separate judgment can be entered to facilitate the collection of civil 

contempt sanctions imposed against a non-party. See Martin v. City of Barstow, No. 

EDCV1302193ABSPX, 2015 WL 12743594, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2015) (ordering the entry 

of a “separate judgment” against a non-party, namely counsel for plaintiffs, to facilitate the 

collection of civil contempt sanctions imposed against that non-party); Leads Club, Inc. v. 

Peterson, No. CIV. 05CV1717-J JMA, 2008 WL 186504, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2008) (ordering 

the entry of a “new, separate judgment” against a non-party, namely counsel for plaintiff, to 

facilitate the enforcement of a civil contempt order against that non-party and collection of civil 

contempt sanctions imposed against that non-party). 

The authorities that Plaintiffs cite in their reply do not address the issue of amended 

judgments. Those authorities provide that a court has discretion to determine the amount and 

duration of civil contempt sanctions. See Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1111-1112 

(9th Cir. 2005) (holding that compensatory sanctions fall within the scope of civil contempt 

sanctions and that a district court has discretion to fashion them); Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair 

Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 1992) (same with respect with coercive civil contempt 

sanctions). 

Plaintiffs cite a Sixth Circuit opinion in their reply, namely Elec. Workers Pension Trust 

Fund of Local Union #58, IBEW v. Gary’s Elec. Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373, 383 n.13 (6th Cir. 2003) 

(Gary’s Electric), for the proposition that “courts have authorized the specific sanctions requested 

by Plaintiffs in similar circumstances.” See Reply at 5. There, the Sixth Circuit reversed a district 

court’s denial of a request to hold the president and sole owner of a corporate defendant (Gary’s 

Electric) in civil contempt for the corporate defendant’s failure to make payments to a union 

pursuant to a court order enforcing a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). 340 F.3d at 376. 

The parties’ dispute began in arbitration, during which the arbitrator found that Gary’s Electric 

had failed to comply with its obligations under the CBA to pay for certain employees’ benefits, 

and ordered Gary’s Electric to pay for past-due benefits and future benefits due under the CBA. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 26 of 30
27 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

Id. at 376-77. When Gary’s Electric failed to comply with the arbitrator’s order, the union filed an 

action in federal court requesting that the district court enter a judgment enforcing the arbitrator’s 

order. Id. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the union, enforcing the 

arbitrator’s order against Gary’s Electric and requiring the company to make payments pursuant to 

the CBA. Id. While an appeal of the summary judgment order was pending, the union initiated 

civil contempt proceedings against Gary’s Electric, as well as the company’s the sole owner and 

president (Russell Pipia), for failing to make payments under the CBA as had been ordered by the 

district court. Id. at 377. The union presented evidence that Pipia had wasted corporate assets to 

avoid making the court-required payments. Id. The district court granted the contempt motion 

with respect to Gary’s Electric but denied it with respect to Pipia on the basis that Pipia was not a 

defendant in the action. Id. 

The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court had the authority to hold Pipia in 

civil contempt even if he was not a defendant in the action, because “Pipia, as an officer of the 

corporation and the one responsible for the corporation’s affairs, was subject to the court’s order 

just as the corporation itself was.” Id. at 382. Further, the Sixth Circuit adopted for the first time 

a standard for defending against allegations of civil contempt that had previously been adopted by 

the Eighth Circuit in Chicago Truck Drivers v. Bhd. Labor Leasing, 207 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2000), 

which requires an alleged contemnor whose defense is a “present inability to comply” to show that 

“he is not responsible for the present inability to pay.” Id. at 383. The Sixth Circuit remanded the 

action for further proceedings in connection with the union’s contempt motion against Pipia, 

reasoning that the union was “entitled to further development of the record regarding a possible 

contempt finding against [Pipia] personally.” Id. at 384. The Sixth Circuit held that, on remand, 

Pipia would need to show why Gary’s Electric could not pay the amounts it owed under the CBA 

and would also “need to show that he was not the cause of Gary’s Electric’s inability to pay.” Id. 

Plaintiffs specifically point to footnote 13 in Gary’s Electric. In that footnote, the Sixth 

Circuit clarified its interpretation of Chicago Truck Drivers in the context of its discussion of the 

civil contempt sanctions that the district court could impose against Pipia on remand; that footnote 

provides: 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 27 of 30
28 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

To the extent that Chicago Truck Drivers suggests that the defendant 

officer could not be held liable for an amount equivalent to the 

underlying delinquent payments because he was never sued in his 

individual capacity, we disagree. Because one of the purposes of 

civil contempt is to compensate a complainant for its losses, we note 

that Pipia can be fined in an amount equivalent to the original 

judgment. The district court should consider to what extent Pipia 

deliberately caused the underlying judgment to remain unpaid and 

should sanction accordingly. 

Id. at 383 n.13. 

Nothing in Gary’s Electric suggests that a court may amend a judgment to make an officer 

or owner of a defendant corporation liable for the amounts the defendant corporation owes in that 

action. At best, footnote 13 suggests, in dicta, that the district court could, on remand, impose a 

civil contempt sanction on the president and sole owner of Gary’s Electric that is “equivalent” to 

the amount that Gary’s Electric owed under the judgment entered by the district court against the 

company and which the company had failed to pay. This dicta does not support Plaintiffs’ request 

for an amended judgment. 

To the extent that Plaintiffs have converted their request for an amended judgment to a 

request for an order imposing civil contempt sanctions on Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in an amount 

“equivalent” to the amounts that LBN owes under the settlement agreement, the Court denies that 

request without prejudice. If the other civil contempt sanctions that the Court imposes pursuant to 

this order on Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, as discussed above, do not result in LBN’s payment of 

the amounts it owes under the settlement agreement, or in its production of documents and records 

showing that it has implemented the discounts, caps, and credits required under the settlement 

agreement, then the Court will entertain a motion for further sanctions against LBN’s principals in 

the amounts that LBN owes under the settlement agreement. In any such motion, Plaintiffs may 

submit evidence indicating that LBN’s failure to pay the amounts it owes under the settlement 

agreement was “deliberately caused” by LBN’s principals. See Gary’s Electric, 340 F.3d at 383 

n.13. 

The Court, therefore, declines to amend the judgment as Plaintiffs request, or to impose at 

this juncture a civil contempt sanction on Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in an amount that is 

equivalent to the amounts that LBN owes under the settlement agreement. 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 28 of 30
29 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

The Court will, however, enter new, separate judgments to facilitate the collection of the 

civil contempt sanctions that the Court imposed on October 3, 2022, on LBN, and the civil 

contempt sanctions that the Court now imposes on Donovan, Ajin, and Moore. See Martin, 2015 

WL 12743594, at *2; Leads Club, 2008 WL 186504, at *1. 

Within seven days of the date of this order, Plaintiffs shall file a proposed judgment in 

favor of Plaintiffs and against LBN for the civil contempt sanctions that the Court imposed on 

LBN on October 3, 2022, and a proposed judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Donovan, 

Ajin, and Moore for the civil contempt sanctions that the Court now imposes on them. The 

proposed judgments shall be worded in a manner that will permit Plaintiffs to collect the civil 

contempt sanctions and execute the judgments. In the proposed judgments, Plaintiffs shall, for the 

interest that the Court has awarded them as a civil contempt sanction against LBN, Donovan, Ajin, 

and Moore, calculate the interest owed by LBN, Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, respectively, to a date 

certain9 and state in the proposed judgments that the interest amounts are as of that date. 

Similarly, for the $1,000 per-day coercive fines that have accrued to date, Plaintiffs shall calculate 

the fines owed by LBN, Donovan, Ajin, and Moore, respectively, to a date certain and state in the 

proposed judgments that the fine amounts are as of that date. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for an order 

holding Donovan, Ajin, and Moore in civil contempt and imposing civil contempt sanctions 

against them. The Court finds that Donovan, Ajin, and Moore are in contempt of Court for the 

9

 Interest, for the purpose of complying with this order, shall be calculated “at a rate equal 

to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the 

judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Interest shall be computed daily and shall be compounded 

annually. 28 U.S.C. § 1961(b). 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 29 of 30
30 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

reasons set forth in this order. The Court will issue a separate order delineating the civil contempt 

sanctions that the Court imposes on Donovan, Ajin, and Moore. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

Dated: January 23, 2023 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 246 Filed 01/23/23 Page 30 of 30