Patagonia, Inc. v. the 18a Chronicles, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 6, 2024
• Docket: 23-55514
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 6 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATAGONIA, INC., No. 23-55514

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-08353-RGK-E v.

THE 18A CHRONICLES, LLC, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant,

and

VANCE GONZALES,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 12, 2024 Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI,** District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Vance Gonzales appeals from the district court’s order finding him and

Irregular IP, LLC (“Irregular”) in civil contempt. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Patagonia, Inc. (“Patagonia”) obtained a default judgment and permanent

injunction against the 18A Chronicles, LLC (“18A”) for violating the parties’

settlement agreement in a prior lawsuit. Later, the district court found that 18A,

along with non-parties Mr. Gonzales and Irregular, violated the permanent

injunction and held them in civil contempt. Mr. Gonzales now argues that he and

Irregular were denied their Fifth Amendment due process rights because the district

court did not hold a hearing.

We review whether the district court violated a party’s due process rights de

novo. Thomas, Head & Greisen Emps. Tr. v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449, 1458 (9th Cir.

1996).

Due process does not guarantee a hearing before a court imposes civil

contempt sanctions. See id. at 1458–59. Instead, “[t]he formality and procedural

requisites for the hearing can vary, depending upon the importance of the interests

involved and the nature of the subsequent proceedings.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401

U.S. 371, 378 (1971). We have “repeatedly held . . . that finding a party in civil

contempt without a full-blown evidentiary hearing does not deny due process of law

to a contemnor.” United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 995 (9th Cir. 1999)

2 (collecting cases). Civil contempt sanctions require fewer procedural protections

because these “sanctions are viewed as nonpunitive and avoidable.” Id. (quoting Int’l

Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831 (1994)). Civil

contempt may be imposed “upon notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Id.

Mr. Gonzales and Irregular received notice of the motion for civil contempt

on April 21, 2023, with a hearing date of May 22, 2023. Although the motion for

contempt named only 18A as a party in violation of the district court’s judgment and

injunction, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities supporting Patagonia’s

motion clearly requested the district court find 18A, Irregular, and Mr. Gonzales in

contempt. These documents were served upon 18A, Mr. Gonzales, a principal of

18A, and Irregular, a successor to 18A. See Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140

F.3d 1313, 1323 (9th Cir. 1998) (“To be held liable in contempt, it is necessary that

a non-party respondent must either abet the defendant in violating the court’s order

or be legally identified with him . . . and that the non-party have notice of the order.”

(cleaned up)); see also Complaint at 3–4, Irregular IP LLC v. Patagonia, No. A-23-

CV-00333-ADA, 2024 WL 103210 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2024) (Texas action in which

Mr. Gonzales and Irregular attest to notice of the judgement and injunction order

against 18A.).

Mr. Gonzales and Irregular did not respond to the motion for contempt. The

district court vacated the hearing after the deadline to file a response to the motion

3 passed. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9 (requiring opposing papers to this type of motion be filed

no later than twenty-one days before the designated hearing date). The local rules

allow the district court to consider a party’s failure to file a response within the

deadline as consent to granting a motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12. Therefore, the district

court’s actions did not constitute a denial of due process as both parties were

afforded an opportunity to be heard. See Thomas, Head & Greisen Emps. Tr., 95

F.3d at 1457–59 (affirming district court’s civil contempt order, reasoning that the

defendants had notice and opportunity to be heard even though defendants did not

properly respond).

AFFIRMED.