Opinion ID: 790147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Order was Sufficiently Specific to be enforceable.

Text: 24 As stated above, the December 29, 2003 order stated that: 25 [A] hearing to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt of court is hereby scheduled for TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004, AT 9:30 A.M. Defendants are ordered to personally appear at the hearing along with defense counsel. Defendants are advised that upon their failure to appear and upon motion by Plaintiff's counsel, sanctions may issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b). 26 An individual may not be held in contempt for violating an order unless the order is sufficiently specific to be enforceable. Finney v. Arkansas Bd. of Correction, 505 F.2d 194, 213 (8th Cir.1974); see also Hazen v. Reagen 16 F.3d 921, 924-25 (8th Cir.1994). Medlock argues that this order was not specific because it did not name him, but only said that defendants must personally appear. We agree with the district court that Medlock knew he was the representative for Medco and therefore reasonably should have known that his presence in court was required by the order. Medlock was the president and sole shareholder for Medco, Inc. and the individual who initiated the name reservation for Medco Forwarding, Inc. Medlock regularly acted on behalf of Medco in communicating with attorneys and the Marshals Service and appearing in court. Given these facts the court was well within its authority to sanction him for his violation of the court order. See Chicago Truck Drivers v. Brotherhood Labor Leasing, 207 F.3d 500, 507 (8th Cir.2000) (finding orders were binding upon an individual who was a shareholder, corporate officer, and agent of the party, even though the orders made no specific reference to him). In addition, he implicitly acknowledged his duty to appear in his responses to the court's questions about his failure to do so when he stated that his failure to appear was an oversight. 27