Opinion ID: 2403365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: The district court's July 17, 2009 show cause order

Text: The Appellants contend that the district court's July 17, 2009 show cause order, which directed them to appear in person at the July 31, 2009 contempt hearing and outlined the parameters of that hearing, violated their due process rights because it unequivocally denied [them] the opportunity to present evidence in support of their positions and to counter opposing testimony and evidence [if] they did not attend the July 31, 2009 [contempt] hearing in person. Aplt. Br. at 64. 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). The district court's order was particularly prejudicial, Appellants argue, in that it did not take exigent circumstances into account. Aplt. Br. at 64. For example, they argue, there was no provision allowing the parties to present evidence and testimony in the event of travel difficulties, illness, or other unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances. Id. at 64-65. Appellants further argue that, had they been afforded the opportunity to present evidence at the July 31, 2009 contempt hearing, the district court would have in all likelihood found that ClearOne could not show a likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 67. As with the previous issue, it appears that any challenges to the district court's July 17, 2009 show cause order have been rendered moot by the district court's subsequent hearings and issuance of the second amended permanent injunction. More specifically, the district court conducted additional hearings and afforded the Appellants additional opportunities to appear and present evidence prior to the issuance of its second amended permanent injunction in August 2010. Consequently, any alleged deficiencies in its July 17, 2009 show cause order appear to be irrelevant. Assuming, for purposes of argument, that the Appellants' arguments have not been rendered moot, we conclude there is no merit to them. [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 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 the Appellants with notice of the pending hearing on ClearOne's motion for contempt and affording them the opportunity, at their discretion, to appear and be heard.