1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01831-LK 11 EMPLOYEE PAINTERS’ TRUST et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART 12 Plaintiffs, AND DENYING IN PART v. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE D & R GLAZING, INC. et al., 14 Defendants. 15
16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: 17 Contempt and for Sanctions. Dkt. No. 63. The Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part 18 as described below. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiffs filed this action in December 2022 to obtain unpaid benefit contributions from 21 Defendants D & R Glazing, Inc. and its corporate governor, Peggy Owens. See generally Dkt. No. 22 1. Plaintiffs’ efforts have been stymied by Defendants’ repeated failure to turn over records. 23 24 1 In March 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for an order for partial default 2 judgment and ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with relevant payroll records. See Dkt. No. 3 22. Defendants did not comply, and in August 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion 4 for an order to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt for that failure. See
5 Dkt. No. 31. After Defendants filed a response, the Court discharged the order to show cause, 6 vacated the portion of its prior Order granting partial default judgment to Plaintiffs, and allowed 7 Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that specified the relevant time period for a records audit 8 and the records sought. Dkt. No. 36. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 9 38. Neither Defendant responded to the amended complaint, and the Clerk entered judgment 10 against both of them. Dkt. Nos. 49, 53. 11 Next, Plaintiffs moved again for partial default judgment, seeking an order requiring 12 Defendants to “submit their payroll and related records to Plaintiffs for completion of an audit for 13 the time period of April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2024[.]” Dkt. No. 59-1 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 14 59 at 2. In an order dated July 7, 2025, the Court found that a collective bargaining agreement
15 gives the trustees the right to audit D&R’s records, and, after considering the Eitel factors, the 16 Court found that “compelling an audit is appropriate in this case[.]” Dkt. No. 62 at 6, 11. 17 Accordingly, the Court directed D&R and Ms. Owens to “submit D&R’s payroll and related 18 records to Plaintiffs within 30 days of the date of this Order for completion of an audit” of the 19 listed records “for the time period of April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2024[.]” Id. at 12–13. On 20 July 10, 2025, Plaintiffs sent a copy of the Court’s July 7, 2025 order to Defendants by email and 21 by mail. Dkt. No. 64 at 2; Dkt. No. 63-1 at 2–17; Dkt. No. 63-2 at 2–3. Plaintiffs also attempted to 22 serve the order on Defendants through a process server, but the process server was unable to effect 23 service despite four attempts. Dkt. No. 63-3 at 2 (noting that Ms. Owens was not present at the
24 office location, she did not return the process server’s calls, and no one else was present at the 1 office). Defendants have not responded to Plaintiffs’ correspondence and requests to schedule the 2 audit. Dkt. No. 64 at 2. 3 On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this motion stating that D&R and Ms. Owens have 4 not provided them with the Court-ordered records. Dkt. No. 63. They seek an order requiring
5 Plaintiffs to appear before the Court and show cause “why they should not be held in contempt of 6 Court and punished accordingly for the willful action of disobeying the July 7, 2025 Order of this 7 Court for the production of payroll and related records to the Plaintiffs.” Dkt. No. 63-4 at 2. 8 Plaintiffs served a copy of this motion on Defendants by U.S. mail on December 16, 2025, Dkt. 9 No. 63 at 7, but neither Defendant has responded to the motion. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 “A court’s contempt powers are broadly divided into two categories: civil contempt and 12 criminal contempt.” Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2016); 13 accord Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 81 F.4th 843, 858 (9th Cir. 2023). And while the 14 distinction between the two categories is not always clear—particularly given that the same
15 conduct may result in sanctions for both—courts differentiate between civil and criminal contempt 16 based on the resulting sanction’s “character and purpose.” Shell Offshore, 815 F.3d at 628–29 17 (quoting Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994)); see also 18 Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 631–32 (1988). Criminal contempt sanctions are “punitive” in the 19 sense that they are intended to “punish prior offenses,” whereas civil sanctions are meant to “coerce 20 compliance with a court order or to compensate the aggrieved party for sustained losses.” Oracle 21 USA, 81 F.4th at 858 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 827 22 (“[C]ivil contempt sanctions . . . may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and 23 an opportunity to be heard.”).
24 1 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants “have qualified themselves as prime candidates for both 2 civil and criminal contempt” and “request that both sanctions and punishment be [o]rdered in this 3 matter.” Dkt. No. 63 at 5. However, in light of the complained-of conduct (Defendants’ failing to 4 comply with the Court’s order), and the character of the sanctions requested (Defendants’
5 compliance with the Court’s order and Plaintiffs’ compensation in the form of attorney’s fees and 6 costs incurred), the Court finds that civil contempt is the proper prism through which to view 7 Plaintiffs’ motion. See, e.g., Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 827; Hicks, 485 U.S. at 631–32; Shell Offshore, 8 815 F.3d at 629. 9 A party moving for civil contempt must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the 10 nonmoving party violated a court order. Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse 11 Union, Locs. 21 & 4, 721 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2013). “The contempt need not be willful, and 12 there is no good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order.” In re Dual-Deck 13 Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993) (quotation marks and 14 citation omitted). Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the alleged
15 contemnor to demonstrate why it was unable to comply. Stone v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 968 F.2d 16 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 Here, Plaintiffs have established by clear and convincing evidence a prima facie case that, 18 despite being given notice and sufficient time to comply, Defendants have failed to comply with 19 this Court’s July 7, 2025 Order to submit D&R’s payroll and related records to Plaintiffs and their 20 auditors. See Dkt. No. 62 at 12–13; Dkt. No. 64 at 2. In addition, Plaintiffs sent copies of the July 21 7, 2025 Order by email and mail to both Defendants. Dkt. No. 64 at 2; Dkt. No. 63-2 at 2–17; Dkt. 22 No. 63-2 at 2–3. Both Defendants therefore had notice of the Court’s Order, but they have not 23 complied with that Order or responded to this motion. Because the record establishes by clear and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01831-LK 11 EMPLOYEE PAINTERS’ TRUST et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART 12 Plaintiffs, AND DENYING IN PART v. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN 13 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE D & R GLAZING, INC. et al., 14 Defendants. 15
16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: 17 Contempt and for Sanctions. Dkt. No. 63. The Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part 18 as described below. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiffs filed this action in December 2022 to obtain unpaid benefit contributions from 21 Defendants D & R Glazing, Inc. and its corporate governor, Peggy Owens. See generally Dkt. No. 22 1. Plaintiffs’ efforts have been stymied by Defendants’ repeated failure to turn over records. 23 24 1 In March 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for an order for partial default 2 judgment and ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with relevant payroll records. See Dkt. No. 3 22. Defendants did not comply, and in August 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion 4 for an order to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt for that failure. See
5 Dkt. No. 31. After Defendants filed a response, the Court discharged the order to show cause, 6 vacated the portion of its prior Order granting partial default judgment to Plaintiffs, and allowed 7 Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that specified the relevant time period for a records audit 8 and the records sought. Dkt. No. 36. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 9 38. Neither Defendant responded to the amended complaint, and the Clerk entered judgment 10 against both of them. Dkt. Nos. 49, 53. 11 Next, Plaintiffs moved again for partial default judgment, seeking an order requiring 12 Defendants to “submit their payroll and related records to Plaintiffs for completion of an audit for 13 the time period of April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2024[.]” Dkt. No. 59-1 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 14 59 at 2. In an order dated July 7, 2025, the Court found that a collective bargaining agreement
15 gives the trustees the right to audit D&R’s records, and, after considering the Eitel factors, the 16 Court found that “compelling an audit is appropriate in this case[.]” Dkt. No. 62 at 6, 11. 17 Accordingly, the Court directed D&R and Ms. Owens to “submit D&R’s payroll and related 18 records to Plaintiffs within 30 days of the date of this Order for completion of an audit” of the 19 listed records “for the time period of April 1, 2022 through March 31, 2024[.]” Id. at 12–13. On 20 July 10, 2025, Plaintiffs sent a copy of the Court’s July 7, 2025 order to Defendants by email and 21 by mail. Dkt. No. 64 at 2; Dkt. No. 63-1 at 2–17; Dkt. No. 63-2 at 2–3. Plaintiffs also attempted to 22 serve the order on Defendants through a process server, but the process server was unable to effect 23 service despite four attempts. Dkt. No. 63-3 at 2 (noting that Ms. Owens was not present at the
24 office location, she did not return the process server’s calls, and no one else was present at the 1 office). Defendants have not responded to Plaintiffs’ correspondence and requests to schedule the 2 audit. Dkt. No. 64 at 2. 3 On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this motion stating that D&R and Ms. Owens have 4 not provided them with the Court-ordered records. Dkt. No. 63. They seek an order requiring
5 Plaintiffs to appear before the Court and show cause “why they should not be held in contempt of 6 Court and punished accordingly for the willful action of disobeying the July 7, 2025 Order of this 7 Court for the production of payroll and related records to the Plaintiffs.” Dkt. No. 63-4 at 2. 8 Plaintiffs served a copy of this motion on Defendants by U.S. mail on December 16, 2025, Dkt. 9 No. 63 at 7, but neither Defendant has responded to the motion. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 “A court’s contempt powers are broadly divided into two categories: civil contempt and 12 criminal contempt.” Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2016); 13 accord Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 81 F.4th 843, 858 (9th Cir. 2023). And while the 14 distinction between the two categories is not always clear—particularly given that the same
15 conduct may result in sanctions for both—courts differentiate between civil and criminal contempt 16 based on the resulting sanction’s “character and purpose.” Shell Offshore, 815 F.3d at 628–29 17 (quoting Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994)); see also 18 Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 631–32 (1988). Criminal contempt sanctions are “punitive” in the 19 sense that they are intended to “punish prior offenses,” whereas civil sanctions are meant to “coerce 20 compliance with a court order or to compensate the aggrieved party for sustained losses.” Oracle 21 USA, 81 F.4th at 858 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 827 22 (“[C]ivil contempt sanctions . . . may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and 23 an opportunity to be heard.”).
24 1 Plaintiffs contend that Defendants “have qualified themselves as prime candidates for both 2 civil and criminal contempt” and “request that both sanctions and punishment be [o]rdered in this 3 matter.” Dkt. No. 63 at 5. However, in light of the complained-of conduct (Defendants’ failing to 4 comply with the Court’s order), and the character of the sanctions requested (Defendants’
5 compliance with the Court’s order and Plaintiffs’ compensation in the form of attorney’s fees and 6 costs incurred), the Court finds that civil contempt is the proper prism through which to view 7 Plaintiffs’ motion. See, e.g., Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 827; Hicks, 485 U.S. at 631–32; Shell Offshore, 8 815 F.3d at 629. 9 A party moving for civil contempt must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the 10 nonmoving party violated a court order. Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse 11 Union, Locs. 21 & 4, 721 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2013). “The contempt need not be willful, and 12 there is no good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order.” In re Dual-Deck 13 Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993) (quotation marks and 14 citation omitted). Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the alleged
15 contemnor to demonstrate why it was unable to comply. Stone v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 968 F.2d 16 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 Here, Plaintiffs have established by clear and convincing evidence a prima facie case that, 18 despite being given notice and sufficient time to comply, Defendants have failed to comply with 19 this Court’s July 7, 2025 Order to submit D&R’s payroll and related records to Plaintiffs and their 20 auditors. See Dkt. No. 62 at 12–13; Dkt. No. 64 at 2. In addition, Plaintiffs sent copies of the July 21 7, 2025 Order by email and mail to both Defendants. Dkt. No. 64 at 2; Dkt. No. 63-2 at 2–17; Dkt. 22 No. 63-2 at 2–3. Both Defendants therefore had notice of the Court’s Order, but they have not 23 complied with that Order or responded to this motion. Because the record establishes by clear and
24 convincing evidence that Defendants have failed to comply with this Court’s order, the burden 1 now shifts to Defendants to “show ‘categorically and in detail’ why they [are] unable to comply 2 with the court’s previous order.” Donovan v. Mazzola, 716 F.2d 1226, 1240 (9th Cir. 1983) 3 (quoting United States v. Rylander, 656 F.2d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981), rev’d on other grounds, 4 460 U.S. 752 (1983)); see also, e.g., Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. ZAK
5 Architectural Metal & Glass LLC, 736 F. Supp. 2d 35, 39–40 (D.D.C. 2010). 6 The record contains no information justifying Defendants’ noncompliance. Again, neither 7 of them has responded to this motion, and the Court construes their non-opposition “as an 8 admission that the motion has merit.” LCR 7(b)(2). Because the burden rests with them, 9 Defendants must show cause why the Court should not hold them in civil contempt. If Defendants 10 fail to justify their noncompliance, the Court will issue an order holding them in civil contempt 11 and imposing daily sanctions in the amount of $200 per Defendant per day to induce their 12 compliance. See, e.g., Greater St. Louis Constr. Laborers Welfare Fund v. J L Brown Contracting 13 Serv., Inc., Case No. 4:15-CV-960-CEJ, 2016 WL 5076189, at *1, 3 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 20, 2016) 14 (imposing fine of $200 per day for each day of noncompliance on a defaulting employer who failed
15 to provide books and payroll records needed for an accounting to determine the amount of 16 delinquent contributions); Bd. of Trs. of Teamsters Joint Council 32 - Emps. Health & Welfare 17 Fund v. H. Brooks & Co. LLC, No. 21-CV-1455 (KMM/DJF), 2022 WL 17352459, at *5 (D. 18 Minn. Dec. 1, 2022) (imposing a $200 daily fine “for each day of [defendant’s] continued 19 noncompliance” with the court’s default judgment order compelling an audit); Buffalo Laborers’ 20 Welfare Fund v. D. Land Const. Co., No. 08-CV-746C, 2010 WL 3894987, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 21 30, 2010) (imposing “a coercive fine of $100 per day” from the date of service of the court’s order 22 until “defendants submit to the audit”). 23
24 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ 3 motion. Dkt. No. 63. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for an order to show cause why 4 Defendants should not be held in criminal contempt, and GRANTS their request for an order to
5 show cause why Defendants should not be held in civil contempt. The Court ORDERS Defendants 6 D&R and Ms. Owens to SHOW CAUSE in writing, on or before March 16, 2026, why the Court 7 should not hold them in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s July 7, 2025 Order. 8 Plaintiffs may file a written response no later than seven days following the filing of Defendants’ 9 submission. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the failure to timely show cause will result in a finding 11 of contempt and the imposition of coercive sanctions as described above. If Defendants comply 12 with the Court’s order, the Court may decline to enter sanctions or lift the sanctions before they 13 take effect. See Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 827, 829 (emphasizing that civil contempt sanctions are 14 avoidable through obedience and that the court may suspend such sanctions pending compliance).
15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this Order by personal 16 service on Defendants and file proof of service with the Court within 14 days of the date of this 17 Order. If Defendants evade service, Plaintiffs may serve them by certified mail and file proof of 18 that service with the Court (alongside proof that Defendants have evaded service). 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order via 20 certified mail to: 21 1) D & R GLAZING, INC. d/b/a DON’S A-1 GLASS SERVICE c/o Peggy Owens 22 13447 NE Whitaker Way Portland, OR 97230
23 24 1 2) D & R GLAZING, INC. d/b/a DON’S A-1 GLASS SERVICE c/o Peggy Owens 2 P.O. Box 20427 Portland, OR 97294 3 Dated this 24th day of February, 2026. 4 A 5 Lauren King 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24