Opinion ID: 78007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attorneys' Fees and Costs Related to the Contempt Order

Text: On April 12, 2005, the district court found the Government in contempt of the preliminary injunction and issued a contempt order. The court imposed a $50,000 per diem fine until the Government complied with the order and awarded appellants attorneys' fees and expenses for bringing the contempt motion. After a bench trial, at the conclusion of which the court held for the Government, the district court vacated the preliminary injunction and contempt order. Appellants contend that they are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs connected to bringing the motion for contempt, and that the district court abused its discretion in vacating that portion of the contempt order. [14] In general, if the injunction upon which an order was based is later vacated, the party's right to relief under the order is eliminated. United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 294-95, 67 S.Ct. 677, 696, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947) (The right to remedial relief falls with an injunction which events prove was erroneously issued.); Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1119 (5th Cir.1976) [15] (A judgment of civil contempt, being remedial in nature, stands or falls with the validity or invalidity of the order, and the opposing party should be compensated only if he was entitled to the order . . . .) (citations omitted). After holding for the Government, the district court concluded that the preliminary injunction and contempt order had been erroneously issued and vacated both. In light of our holding that appellants were entitled to the two Article 90(D)(ii) C directorships, the preliminary injunction and contempt order were not necessarily entered erroneously. [16] Thus, we remand the issue of attorneys' fees and costs for a determination of what fees and costs, if any, should be awarded to appellants, recognizing that such an award is committed to the discretion of the district court. Sizzler Family Steak Houses v. W. Sizzlin Steak House, Inc., 793 F.2d 1529, 1534 (11th Cir.1986). Again, we leave for the district court to determine whether a stay or a hearing on costs and fees is appropriate, given the pending appeal in the Privy Council. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.