N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, THOM AS SELEY; STEVEN W ILLIAM S, R

e a l-pa rtie s-in-inte re st - Appe lla nts,
v. ESTATE OF E. W

AYNE HAGE; W AYNE N. HAGE, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17039 D.C . No. 2:07-c v-01154-R C J-VC F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015, a s to Appe l la nts a nd Esta t e of Ha ge * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , WARD LAW , a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc u it Judge s. 

# F IL ED
JAN 15 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion 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 tha

t this c a s e is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt a s to Appe lla

n ts a nd W ayne N. Ha ge . Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).R e a l-pa rtie s-in-inte re st Thom a s Se le y and Ste ve n W i llia

m s a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s orde r finding the m in c onte m p t of c ourt. R e v ie wing for a buse of disc re tion, Hila o v. Esta

te of M arc os, 103 F.3d 762, 764 (9th C ir. 1996), we
re ve rse . 1. W e have a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion. Thedistric t c ourt’ s orde r did not be c om e fina l a n d e ffe c tive until the e n t

ry of fina l judgm e nt in 2013, a nd Se le y and W illia m s file d a tim e l y notic e of a

ppe a l from

tha t judgm e nt. M ore o ve r, e ve n if the
c onte m p t orde r be c am e fina l be fore e ntry of fina l judgm e nt on them e rits, a pre judgm e nt a

ppe a l is disc re t iona

ry . Le ga l Voic e v. Storm ans Inc ., 738 F.3d 1178, 1182–84 (9th C ir. 2013). Se le y and W i llia

m s ha d the option of waiting until e ntry of fina l judgm e nt a

nd a ppe a ling " to the sa

m e e xte nt a

pa rty c an a ppe a l suc h a

n orde r." Id. at 1184. 2. The distric t c ourt grossly a buse d the powe r of c onte m pt. Se e Int’ l Union, Unite d M ine W orke rs of Am
. v. B a gwe l l, 512 U.S. 821, 831 (1994) (" [T] he
c onte m p t powe r . . . unique ly

is lia ble to a buse . . . . C ontum a c y

ofte n strike s at the
m ost vulne ra

ble an d hum an qua litie s of a judge ’ s te m

pe ram e nt, a

nd its fusion of le gisla tive , e xe c utive , a

nd judic ia l powe rs sum

m ons forth theprospe c t of the m ost ty rannic a l lic e ntiousne ss." (c ita tion, inte rna l quota

tion m arks, a

nd e llipsis
om i tte d)). The two " un de rly ing c onc e rn[s] tha t ga ve rise to the c onte m

pt powe r"
2are " t

he disruption of c ourt proc e e dings" and " disobe die nc e to the orde rs of the Judic ia ry ." Young v. Unite d State s e x re l. Vuitton e t Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798 (1987). Ne ithe r is im

plic a te d he re , be c a

use the c o urt im

p ose d c onte m

p t sa n c tions in re sponse to out-of-c o urt c onduc t tha t did not c ontra

ve ne any c ourt orde r; inde e d, no injunc tive or othe r prosc riptive orde rs ha d be e n gra nte d. Although wea c knowle dge tha t e xtre m e c irc um sta

nc e s m ay wa rrant the use of c onte m pt for out-of-c ourt c o nduc t unre late d to a c o urt orde r, we e m

pha siz e tha

t,

" [b] e c a use of the ir ve ry p o te nc y , inhe re nt powe rs m ust be e xe rc i se d with re stra int
and disc re tion." C ham

be rs v. NASC O, Inc ., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). For exam ple , a tte m pting to bribe

a witne ss m ight wa

rrant the use of c onte m

pt powe rs (a s we ll a s
c rim ina l sa

n c tions). As a

nothe r e xam

ple , the Supre m e C ourt twic e re c ogniz e d— in
c a se s at le a st 80 y e a

rs old tha t we hav e ne ve r ha d oc c a sion to a pply

— that
c onte m p t wa s a ppropria te whe n a pa rty de stroy e d the subje c t m a tte r of the litiga tion, thus inte

rfe ring with the

c ourt’ s a dm inistra

tion of justic e . Se e Lam

b v. C ram e r, 285 U.S. 217, 219 (1932) (finding tha t c onte m pt proc e e d ings m ight be brought a ga inst a

pe rson whose " re c e ipt a

nd dive rsion of [c e rta in] prope rty , whic h
wa s the n [le g a lly

c onside re d in the posse ssion of thec ourt] , te nde d to de fe a t a ny de c re e whic h the c ourt m ight ultima te l y m ake in the c a use " (c ita tions omi tte d)); M e rrim a c k R ive r Sa v. B ank v. C ity of C la y C tr., 219 U.S. 527, 533 (1911) (finding
3pa

rtie s in c onte m

pt whe n t he y took a c tions tha

t " did thus de stroy

the subje c t-m a tte r of the suit" ). The a c tions by

Se le y and W illia

m s c om e nowhe re ne ar m e e ting thec orre c t le ga l sta nda rd for c onte m

pt. The y took la

wful a c tions, within the

sc ope of the ir sta tutory an d re gula

tory obliga tions, tha t ha d no e ffe c t wha

tsoe ve r on the c a se be fore the c ourt. Of prim ary im porta nc e , a nd c ontra ry to the distric t c ourt’ s unde rsta nding, thedistric t c ourt did not ha ve jurisdic tion ove r De fe n da nts’ wate r rights. As wehold in the m a in a ppe a l, De fe nda

nts’ wate r rights we re irre le va nt to this c a s e . B ut e ve n a ssum ing tha t the y we re re le va

n t, the gove rnm e nt did not de stroy or signific antly

a ffe c t e ve n a single wate r right. Nor did Se le y and W illia m s inte rfe re in a

ny wa y with a witne s s’ te stim ony to the c ourt or othe rwise inte rfe re with thec o urt’ s a dm inistra tion of justic e . In sum , the distric t c ourt’ s findings of c onte m pt a pplie d the wrong le ga l sta nda rd, a nd it is c l e ar that Se le y

and W illia

m s ne v e r c ontra

ve ne d the prope r le ga l sta nda rd. RE V E RSE D.

4