N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. TOB Y C ARL M c ADAM , DB A R i singsun He a lth, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, a nd GRETA S. AR

M STR O NG, DB A R isingsun He a lth, De fe nda

nt. No. 13-36201 D.C . No. 1:10-c v-00128-SEH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Sa m E. Ha ddon, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2015 ** B e fore : FARRIS, WARDLAW , a nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED MAR 20 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Toby

C arl M c Adam , dba

R i singsun He a lth, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r holding him in c ivil c onte m

pt a nd a warding liquida

te d da m a ge s a nd a ttorne y ’ s fe e s to the Unite d State s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wfor an a

buse of disc re tion a

c ivil c onte m

p t orde r, and re vie wfor c le ar e rror unde rly i n g fa c tua l findings. FTC v . Affordable

Me dia, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th C ir. 1999). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it found M c Adam in c onte m p t for fa iling to c om

p ly with thete rm s of a

ne gotia te d c onse nt de c re e . Se e Irw in v . Masc o tt , 370 F.3d 924, 931 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe rson subje c t to injunc tion ge ne ra lly m ay not c onte st its la

wfulne ss by

disobe y ing it). The distric t c ourt a

w arde d liquida

te d da m a ge s to the Unite d

State s unde r the te rm s of the c onse nt de c re e , whic h provide d for liquida te d da m a ge s not to e xc e e d $80,000 in a

ny c a le nda r y e ar for fa ilure to c om

p l y . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by

using a n am ount ne gotia

te d by the pa rtie s a s c om

pe nsation for M c A dam ’ s c ontinue d c onte m ptuous c onduc t. Se e SEC v . Hic k e y , 322 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th C ir. 2003) (se tting forth sta n da rd of re vie wan d noting tha t “ [d] istric t c ourts ha ve broa d e q uita ble powe r to orde r a

ppropria te re lie f in c ivil c onte m

pt proc e e dings” ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

awarding a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s a s

1 3 - 3 6 2 0 1 2pa

rt of its c onte m

pt orde r. Se e He nry

v . Gill Indus., Inc . , 983 F.2d 943, 946 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w). W e re je c t M c Adam ’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning de nia l of due proc e ss, viola tion of theC onfronta

tion C la use , a nd viola t ion of the Equa l Prote c tion C la use . The distric t c ourt a fforde d M c A dam due proc e ss by

providing notic e and a

n opportunity

to be he ard on the c onte m pt c la im . Se e Unite d State s v . Ay re s , 166 F.3d 991, 995 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ [C ] ivil c onte m pt m ay be im

pose d in a

n ordina ry c ivil proc e e ding upon notic e and a n opportunity

to be he ard. Ne i the r a

jury tria l nor proof be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt is re quire d.” (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). M c Adam ’ s oppose d m otion for a sta y pe nding a

ppe a l, file d on Nove m

be r 3, 2014, is de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 6 2 0 1 3