Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Margin Construction, Inc.

N.D. California

Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Margin Construction, Inc.

DecidedSeptember 28, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00462

StatusUnknown

This text of Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Margin Construction, Inc. (Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Margin Construction, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Margin Construction, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 22-cv-00462-TLT LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE 8 TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 Plaintiffs, Re: ECF No. 33 10 v. 11 MARGIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., 12 Defendant. 13 14 On June 8, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for an order to show cause as to (1) why the Court 15 should not hold Defendant Margin Construction, Inc. (“Margin”) and its CEO and President, 16 Miguel Angel Marquez, in civil contempt and (2) why the Court should not impose monetary 17 sanctions against Margin and Mr. Marquez in the amount of $2,800 for the fees incurred in 18 making its motion. See ECF No. 33. Plaintiffs supported that motion with evidence that Margin 19 had failed to comply with the Court’s order granting a Stipulation for Judgment, where Margin 20 was ordered to produce certain audit documents and pay the Plaintiffs $4,000 in attorneys’ fees 21 and costs. See ECF No. 32; Parsons v. Ryan, 949 F.3d 443, 456-57 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming 22 court’s inherent authority to issue civil contempt orders and sanctions). However, Plaintiffs did 23 not fully address the requirements associated with holding Mr. Marquez, a non-party, in contempt. 24 See Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1323–24 (9th Cir. 1998) (describing 25 contempt requirements for non-parties). 26 An opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion was due on June 22, 2023, and no opposition was filed. 27 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause 1 No later than October 12, 2023, Margin shall show cause as to why civil contempt and 2 || monetary sanctions should not be imposed against them. Any response to this order shall be 3 supported with admissible evidence. The Court will consider any response filed by Margin and 4 || Mr. Marquez at a hearing scheduled for February 13, 2023. 5 Counsel for Plaintiffs is hereby ordered to provide a copy of this order to Margin and Mr. 6 Marquez within 24 hours of the date this order is filed, and to file a declaration attesting to that 7 within two days thereafter. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: September 28, 2023 11 12 ( y : en en TRINA L> PSON 13 United States District Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 22-cv-00462-TLT LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE 8 TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 Plaintiffs, Re: ECF No. 33 10 v. 11 MARGIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., 12 Defendant. 13 14 On June 8, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for an order to show cause as to (1) why the Court 15 should not hold Defendant Margin Construction, Inc. (“Margin”) and its CEO and President, 16 Miguel Angel Marquez, in civil contempt and (2) why the Court should not impose monetary 17 sanctions against Margin and Mr. Marquez in the amount of $2,800 for the fees incurred in 18 making its motion. See ECF No. 33. Plaintiffs supported that motion with evidence that Margin 19 had failed to comply with the Court’s order granting a Stipulation for Judgment, where Margin 20 was ordered to produce certain audit documents and pay the Plaintiffs $4,000 in attorneys’ fees 21 and costs. See ECF No. 32; Parsons v. Ryan, 949 F.3d 443, 456-57 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming 22 court’s inherent authority to issue civil contempt orders and sanctions). However, Plaintiffs did 23 not fully address the requirements associated with holding Mr. Marquez, a non-party, in contempt. 24 See Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1323–24 (9th Cir. 1998) (describing 25 contempt requirements for non-parties). 26 An opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion was due on June 22, 2023, and no opposition was filed. 27 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause 1 No later than October 12, 2023, Margin shall show cause as to why civil contempt and 2 || monetary sanctions should not be imposed against them. Any response to this order shall be 3 supported with admissible evidence. The Court will consider any response filed by Margin and 4 || Mr. Marquez at a hearing scheduled for February 13, 2023. 5 Counsel for Plaintiffs is hereby ordered to provide a copy of this order to Margin and Mr. 6 Marquez within 24 hours of the date this order is filed, and to file a declaration attesting to that 7 within two days thereafter. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: September 28, 2023 11 12 ( y : en en TRINA L> PSON 13 United States District Judge

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Margin Construction, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-trustees-of-the-laborers-health-and-welfare-trust-fund-for-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack