UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

 

 

TDC INTERNATIONAL CORP. 

f/k/a G.E. THOMPSON DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 08-14792 

 

JAE L. BURNHAM, d/b/a QUICK AND 

EASY MOVING, AND QUICK AND EASY 

MOVING, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND ISSUING BENCH 

WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST 

The court entered a consent judgment in this trademark dispute on June 22, 

2009. (Dkt. #30.) Defendant Jae Burnham, doing business as Quick and Easy Moving, 

repeatedly failed to abide by that consent judgment, which ultimately prompted the court 

to hold him in contempt. (Dkt. #57.) On January 1, 2011, Defendant filed for Chapter 7 

bankruptcy, and this proceeding was stayed in accordance with the automatic stay 

provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). (Dkt. #61.) The bankruptcy court 

ultimately denied Defendant discharge. In re Jae Burnham, No. 11-00001 (Bankr. W.D. 

Mich. Oct. 7, 2011.) Thereafter, Plaintiff successfully petitioned the court to reopen the 

case and lift the stay (Dkt. #63); however, Defendant then filed a second notice of 

bankruptcy (Dkt. #64) which promoted the court to reimpose the stay. (Dkt. #65.) 

Plaintiff initiated an adversarial proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court to determine 

the dischargeability of Defendant’s contempt sanctions in this case. The Bankruptcy 

court ultimately held that the $9,178.00 in sanctions accrued by Defendant were non-
2 

dischargeable. In re TDC Int'l Corp. v. Burnham, No. DL 17-03285, 17-80176, 2018 WL 

5255297 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. July 18, 2018). Following this ruling, Plaintiff successfully 

petitioned the court to lift the stay and order Defendant to show cause why he should 

not be held in contempt of court for his continued failure to comply with the court’s 

earlier rulings. (Dkt. #65.) A show cause hearing was held on November 7, 2018. Mere 

hours before the hearing began, Defendant filed a third notice of bankruptcy and 

requested that the court reimpose the automatic stay. (Dkt. #69.) The show cause 

hearing persisted nevertheless, and the court cautioned Defendant that failure to tender 

partial payment of the contempt fees may result in additional sanctions, specifically 

incarceration. Defendant ignored the court’s warning and failed to tender any payment. 

(Dkt. #72.) 

 The Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay does not automatically halt all judicial 

proceedings against a defendant. See Dominic's Rest. of Dayton, Inc. v. Mantia, 683 

F.3d 757, 760 (6th Cir. 2012). The district court of a pending proceeding determines 

whether the proceeding is subject to the automatic stay. NLRB v. Edward Cooper 

Painting, Inc., 804 F.2d 934, 939 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting In re Baldwin-United Corp. 

Litig., 765 F.2d 343, 347 (2d Cir. 1985)) (“The court in which the litigation claimed to be 

stayed is pending has jurisdiction to determine not only its own jurisdiction but also the 

more precise question whether the proceeding pending before it is subject to the 

automatic stay.”). “Courts have . . . the inherent authority to enforce their judicial orders 

and decrees in cases of civil contempt.” Liberis v. Craig, 845 F.2d 326 (6th Cir. 1988). 

The court has reviewed the applicable case law and determines that it has jurisdiction 

over the instant matter. 
3 

 The law in the Sixth Circuit is clear that defendants cannot escape civil sanction 

penalties simply by filing for bankruptcy because “[w]ere a debtor permitted to ‘blatantly 

violate direct orders of the court and then seek shelter from a bankruptcy judge,’ then 

the power to sanction ‘could be rendered almost meaningless.’” Leonard v. RDLG, LLC, 

644 F. App’x 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Dominic's, 683 F.3d at 761). In this case, 

Defendant cannot hide behind a new petition of bankruptcy to avoid his nondischargeable contempt sanctions. The court has offered Defendant ample 

opportunities to comply with the court’s ruling, but Defendant has skirted his obligations 

for years. At this point, the court is left with no other option to coerce Defendant’s 

compliance apart from incarceration. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant, Jae L. Burnham, stands in civil contempt of 

court for his willful and continued failure to fully comply with this court’s previous 

contempt order November 19, 2010 (Dkt. # 57) issued for violating the injunction 

imposed by this court on May 3, 2010. (Dkt. # 40.) As a result, Defendant is DIRECTED 

to pay Plaintiff TDC International Corporation the balance of his accrued civil sanction 

penalties, $9,178.00. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Bench Warrant shall issue for the arrest of 

Defendant, Jae L. Burnham, by the United States Marshal to be brought before this 

court and to remain in custody until he fully complies with this court’s Order dated 

November 19, 2010. Should Defendant not comply on his own volition, Defendant will 

remain in custody until January 8, 2019 at 2:30 p.m. at which time he will appear 

 
4 

at a hearing before the court in Port Huron, Michigan and explain the status of his 

compliance. 

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: December 12, 2018 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

on this date, December 12, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk 

(810) 292-6522 

S:\Cleland\Cleland\HEB\Civil\08-14792.TDC.contempt.order.arrest.warrant.HEB.docx