Opinion ID: 2783937
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nature of the Sanction

Text: The sufficiency of notice hinges on whether the district court’s sanction constituted a criminal- or civil- contempt judgment. A court’s “contempt order or judgment is characterized as either civil or criminal depending upon its primary purpose.” In re Bradley, 588 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lamar Fin. Corp. v. Adams, 918 F.2d 564, 566 (5th Cir. 1990)). A sanction is criminal if its purpose “is to punish the contemnor and vindicate the authority of the court.” Lamar, 918 F.2d at 566. A sanction is civil, on the other hand, if its purpose is to “coerce the contemnor into compliance with a court order, or to compensate another party for the contemnor’s violation.” Id.; see also In re Bradley, 588 F.3d at 263. “A key determinant to this inquiry is whether the penalty imposed is absolute or conditional on the contemnor’s conduct.” Lamar, 918 F.2d at 566. For example, “a lump sum fine that punishes past conduct is criminal, while a fine that accrues on an ongoing basis in response to noncompliance is civil.” In re Bradley, 588 F.3d at 263; accord Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 829 (1994) (“A flat, unconditional fine . . . announced after a finding of contempt is criminal if the contemnor has no 4 Case: 14-30961 Document: 00512956505 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/04/2015 No. 14-30961 subsequent opportunity to reduce or avoid the fine through compliance.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We hold that the $10,000 in sanctions constitutes a criminal-contempt sanction. It is not compensatory, as it was payable to the Clerk of the Court. See In re Bradley, 588 F.3d at 264 (“The present proceeding is a remedial civil contempt proceeding, because the bankruptcy court held [the contemnor] liable to the bankruptcy estate rather than imposing a fine payable to the court.”). Nor is it remedial because it “does not remedy the consequences of defiant conduct,” id. at 263–64. Moreover, the sanction is unconditional and punitive, as it was not dependent on Appellants’ future conduct. See Lamar, 918 F.2d at 566 (“The [sanction] had a purely punitive purpose because it was not conditioned upon the future conduct of the [contemnors].”); United Mine Workers, 512 U.S. at 829. Because the district court issued a criminal-contempt sanction, we now address whether Appellants were provided with sufficient notice prior to the hearing.