Opinion ID: 4027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Order of Contempt1

Text: We review a district court’s contempt order for “abuse of discretion.” See, e.g., Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial, Ltda. v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Tech., Inc., 369 F.3d 645, 655 (2d Cir. 2004). “A party may be held in civil contempt for failure to comply with a court order if (1) the order the contemnor failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the contemnor has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. It need not be established that the violation was willful.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In the instant case, the terms of the contempt order and Gorman’s unreasonable noncompliance with the order are clear. Although Gorman states that he did not violate the order because he had relinquished responsibility for the misuse of the Cold Stone displays by selling the displays to Bonds, it is clear that his sale actually enabled the infringement and did not relieve Gorman of responsibility. The franchise agreement with Cold Stone forbade Gorman from selling Cold Stone trademarked items without Cold Stone’s consent and required him, upon termination of his franchise, to “promptly” return to Cold Stone all of the franchise materials. Instead, Gorman sold the items to Bonds without Cold Stone’s 1 An order of civil contempt against a party to an action is neither a final order nor an injunctive order and hence is generally not appealable. See, e.g., Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U.S. 105 (1936). However, “under . . . particular circumstances” where the district court has entered monetary judgments as sanctions for civil contempt, we have allowed appeals from contempt orders. See N.Y. Tel. Co. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., AFL-CIO, 445 F.2d 39, 45 (2d Cir. 1971). We do not assess whether the circumstances in the instant case would warrant appellate review, but rather, assume arguendo that those circumstances could be met because we would affirm the contempt order on the merits in any event. 5 consent and then volunteered to act as manager, even if temporarily, at the Queens store. For all of these reasons, we cannot say that the District Court erred in entering an order of contempt against Gorman.