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 REQURING PLAINTIFFS TO 

FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR 

MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT 

SANCTIONS 

(Re: Dkt. No. 232)

On November 23, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for an order to hold the principals of Libre by 

Nexus, Inc. (LBN), Micheal Donovan, Evan Ajin, and Richard Moore, in civil contempt. Docket 

No. 232. A hearing on this motion is currently scheduled for January 19, 2023. 

An opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion was due on December 7, 2022, and no opposition was 

filed. 

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

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

set December 27, 2022, as the deadline for Donovan, Ajin, and Moore to file a response. Id. The 

Court ordered counsel for LBN to provide a copy of the order to show cause to Donovan, Ajin, 

and Moore within one business day of the date the order was filed, and to file a declaration 

attesting to that within two days thereafter. Id.

On December 14, 2022, John Shoreman, counsel for LBN, filed a declaration in which he 

testified that he served a copy of the order to show cause on Donovan, Ajin, and Moore via email 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 239 Filed 01/07/23 Page 1 of 4
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

on December 13, 2022. Docket No. 237. Mr. Shoreman further declared that “Richard Moore is 

no longer an officer or director of LBN and owns no interest in the company.” Id. 

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. 

Since Mr. Shoreman and Mr. Payson filed their declarations, there have been no other 

filings in this action.

For a non-party to be held liable in civil contempt for a corporate defendant’s violations of 

a court order, the non-party must have notice of the court order that was violated and either abet 

the defendant in violating the court’s order or be legally identified with the defendant. 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). The Court tentatively finds that Plaintiffs have made the requisite 

showing for the imposition of civil contempt sanctions under Peterson with respect to Donovan 

and Ajin, particularly given that Donovan and Ajin have not filed any response to Plaintiffs’ 

motion and have not attempted to refute any of Plaintiffs’ arguments or evidence. 

No later than January 17, 2023, at noon, Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of their 

motion that addresses the following matters.

1. The impact, if any, of Mr. Shoreman’s declaration that Richard Moore is no longer 

an officer, director, or owner of LBN, on whether civil contempt sanctions can be imposed on 

Moore for the violations of the Court’s orders addressed in Plaintiffs’ motion.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 239 Filed 01/07/23 Page 2 of 4
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. A contempt 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.” Ahearn ex rel. 

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

(9th Cir. 2013). The Court tentatively finds that some of the civil contempt sanctions that 

Plaintiffs request in their proposed order, Docket No. 232-3, fall within the scope of permissible 

civil contempt sanctions that can be imposed against LBN’s principals, such as the attorneys’ fees 

that Plaintiffs incurred in filing motions to enforce the settlement agreement and for sanctions, and 

the $1,000-per-day fine for continued non-compliance with the Court’s orders. However, 

Plaintiffs have not shown that their request for an order holding Donovan, Ajin, and Moore jointly 

and severally liable for the principal amounts LBN owes under the settlement agreement (which 

are distinct from any civil contempt sanctions the Court previously imposed on LBN) falls within 

the scope of permissible civil contempt sanctions. The principal amounts in question are: (1) the 

cash amounts LBN owes under the settlement agreement, which total $1,590,000 and are 

comprised of $750,00 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; and (2) $72,000 that LBN 

still owes under the settlement agreement for the costs of settlement administration.

In their motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Court has the authority to “amend[] the judgment” 

such that the principal amounts LBN owes under the settlement agreement will be owed, instead, 

by LBN as well as Donovan, Moore, and Ajin. See Motion at 14-15, Docket No. 232. The 

authorities that Plaintiffs cite do not support that proposition. 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 

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 239 Filed 01/07/23 Page 3 of 4
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

that non-party). Those authorities do not support the proposition that a judgment previously

entered against a party pursuant to a settlement agreement can be amended to make a non-party

liable for amounts owed by that party under that settlement agreement. Plaintiffs shall address this 

issue in their reply and include citations to any legal authority.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/7/2023

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 239 Filed 01/07/23 Page 4 of 4