Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:15-cv-02726
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 AMANDA JONES, Case No. 15-cv-02726-TSH

5 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 6 v. Re: Dkt. 505 7 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 10 On September 27, 2024, the Court granted in part Plaintiff Amanda Jones’s motion for 11 sanctions and ordered Robert G. Howie, counsel for Defendant Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit 12 District, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $46,363.29. ECF No. 483. Plaintiff now 13 requests the Court order Mr. Howie to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for 14 failure to comply with the Court’s order. ECF No. 505. 15 A district court also has the inherent authority to enforce compliance with its orders 16 through a civil contempt proceeding. Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 17 U.S. 821, 827–28 (1994). A contempt sanction is considered civil if it “is remedial, and for the 18 benefit of the complainant.” Id. A contempt fine is considered civil and remedial if it either 19 “coerce[s] the defendant into compliance with the court’s order, [or] . . . compensate[s] the 20 complainant for losses sustained.” United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 21 303–04 (1947). “The standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well settled: The moving 22 party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the [non-moving party] 23 violated a specific and definite order of the court.” FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 24 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n. 25 9 (9th Cir. 1992)). The contempt “need not be willful, and there is no good faith exception to the 26 requirement of obedience to a court order.” In re Dual–Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust 27 Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). “But a person should not be held in contempt if his action 1 (cleaned up). Thus, the Court may grant a motion for an order of contempt if it finds that 2 || Defendants (1) violated a court order, (2) beyond substantial compliance, (3) not based on a good 3 faith and reasonable interpretation of the order, (4) by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Once 4 || the moving party has met its burden, the burden “shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they 5 || were unable to comply” with the court order. Stone, 968 F.2d at 856 n. 9 (citing Donovan v. 6 || Mazzola, 716 F.2d 1226, 1240 (9th Cir. 1983)). “They must show they took every reasonable step 7 || tocomply.” 7d. (citing Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 544 F.2d 396, 406 (9th Cir. 1976)). 8 Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown Mr. Howie violated the Court’s sanctions order 9 || by failing to pay the sanctions as ordered, and he has failed to provide any explanation for this 10 || failure. Initially, Mr. Howie filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit (ECF No. 485), but he 11 subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, which the Ninth Circuit granted on November 12 5, 2024 (ECF No. 489). Since that time, Plaintiff's counsel reached out to Mr. Howie to inquire as 5 13 to whether he intends to pay the amount ordered. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Howie had a 14 conversation with her counsel, Catherine Cabalo, about payment of the sanctions, and Ms. Cabalo 3 15 advised him that Plaintiff would file a motion if the amount was not tendered by January 24, 2025. a 16 || ECF No. 505 at 2. Mr. Howie has not responded further. /d. 3 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Robert G. Howie to show cause why he should not be 18 || held in contempt for failure to comply with the Court’s September 27, 2024 sanctions order. Mr. 19 Howie shall file a response by February 20, 2025. If Mr. Howie files a response, Plaintiff may file 20 || any reply by February 27, 2025. The Court shall either issue an order based on the parties’ filings 21 or conduct a hearing on March 13, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, 450 Golden 22 Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 23 Plaintiff is directed to serve this Order on Mr. Howie by February 7, 2025 and file proof of 24 service thereafter. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: February 6, 2025 27 LAA. □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge