Opinion ID: 2225574
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: Interpretation of This Court's Mandate

Text: In April 2008, SFAC moved for a new contempt order with coercive sanctions consistent with this court's mandate and for attorney fees and costs. In Smeal I, we vacated those aspects of the district court's order affording equitable relief to [SFAC and] the award of attorney fees and costs. [102] We did not vacate the court's finding of contempt. In May 2008, the court heard arguments on SFAC's contempt motion and R.K.'s motion to dismiss the contempt action or to reopen it. In response to R.K.'s motion, the court received all of the evidence that it had received at the hearing on R.K.'s permission to modify a commercially available valve spool. But it stated that because it no longer considered the terms of the injunction to be ambiguous, the way is clear to enter the contempt order in this case. It interpreted our mandate in Smeal I as requiring it to reimpose a purge plan and directed counsel for SFAC to prepare a new contempt order. The only remaining issue was attorney fees.