Opinion ID: 2403365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: Personal jurisdiction over defendants at the July 31, 2009 contempt hearing

Text: DialHD and Donald Bowers argue that the district court could not have properly exerted personal jurisdiction over them at the July 31, 2009 contempt hearing because ClearOne had never filed an actual complaint against them. [12] Aplt. Br. at 74. In turn, they argue, they should not have been held in contempt by the district court. We conclude that this is little more than a reiteration of Appellants' challenge to the district court's August 5, 2009 TRO. For the reasons already discussed above, we conclude that DialHD and Donald Bowers were, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), subject to the district court's orders because they had actual notice of the district court's original permanent injunction and were found by the district court to have acted in concert with the WideBand defendants in violating that injunction.