Opinion ID: 220657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: District court's July 17, 2009 order

Text: Donald Bowers contends that the district court's July 17, 2009 show cause order, which directed him to appear at the July 31, 2009 contempt hearing and outlined the parameters of that hearing, violated his due process rights because it unequivocally denied [him] the opportunity to present evidence in support of his position and to counter opposing testimony and evidence [if] he did not attend the July 31, 2009 [contempt] hearing in person. Aplt. Br. at 60. We review questions of constitutional law de novo. Citizens for Responsible Gov't State Political Action Comm. v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 1193 (10th Cir.2000). Donald Bowers argues that the July 17, 2009 order was particularly prejudicial [because] it did not take exigent circumstances into account. Aplt. Br. at 60-61. For example, he argues, there was no provision allowing [him] to present evidence and testimony in the event of travel difficulties, illness, or other unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances. Id. at 61. He further complains that [t]he matter was ... compounded by the fact that the district court, at the July 31, 2009 show cause hearing, relied heavily upon a highly redacted affidavit and investigative report from an anonymous author. Id. at 61-62. With no way to challenge ClearOne's witnesses' veracity and reliability or the accuracy of their findings, he argues, he was, in effect, not so much participating in an evidentiary hearing as he was a summary proceeding, with all facts and conclusions being viewed in ClearOne's favor from beginning to end. Id. at 62-63. As a threshold matter, we question whether any challenges to the July 17, 2009 show cause order have been rendered moot by the district court's issuance of the August 13, 2010 second amended permanent injunction, which added Donald Bowers as a person being enjoined, pursuant to the findings set forth in the district court's contempt order of that same date, id. at D23423-57. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 314, 119 S.Ct. 1961, 144 L.Ed.2d 319 (1999) (Generally, an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction becomes moot when the trial court enters a permanent injunction, because the former merges into the latter.); Smith v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 270 U.S. 587, 588, 46 S.Ct. 408, 70 L.Ed. 747 (1926) (holding that order granting preliminary injunction was not appealable because permanent injunction was subsequently granted and thus the interlocutory injunction had become merged in the final decree). Even assuming that Donald Bowers' challenges to the July 17, 2009 order have not been rendered moot, we conclude there is no merit to those challenges. [A]t a minimum, the Due Process Clause require[s] that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975). The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard, a right that has little reality or worth unless one is informed that the matter is pending and can choose for himself whether to ... contest. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In our view, the district court's July 17, 2009 show cause order satisfied these requirements by providing Donald Bowers with notice of the pending hearing on ClearOne's motion for contempt, and affording him the opportunity, at his discretion, to appear and be heard. Moreover, the district court's show cause order outlined, in clear fashion, the conditions under which Donald Bowers would be allowed to be heard. Although Donald Bowers now complains that the district court's order was unfair, he failed to present these same objections to the district court prior to the July 31, 2009 hearing. Likewise, he failed to seek a continuance of the hearing. Thus, by failing to voice any objections or to seek a continuance, and in turn by choosing to attend the hearing via telephone, Donald Bowers effectively accepted the terms outlined in the district court's show cause order. In sum, we conclude that the district court's July 17, 2009 show cause order did not violate Donald Bowers' due process rights.