Opinion ID: 147216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Injunction and Contempt

Text: [A] person subject to an injunction must ordinarily obey it. Irwin v. Mascott, 370 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir.2004) (discussing Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1210 (1967)). However, one may challenge an injunction with which one disagrees through the usual processes of law, such as an appeal. Id. The City appropriately took that approach here, appealing the underlying injunction as well as the order finding it in contempt. Vacatur of the injunction entered in World Wide Rush I voids the civil contempt order entered in World Wide Rush II. See United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 295, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947) (The right to remedial relief falls with an injunction which events prove was erroneously issued.); Kirkland v. Legion Ins. Co., 343 F.3d 1135, 1142-43 (9th Cir.2003) (Because entering the order to pay was an abuse of discretion, the corresponding contempt order cannot stand.); Davies v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 1390, 1394 (9th Cir.1991) ([T]he legitimacy of the contempt adjudication is based on the validity of the underlying order.).