Strojnik v. Village 1017 Coronado, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 PETER STROJNIK, Case No. 19-cv-02210-BAS-MSB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER REQU IRING DEFENDANT 11 v. TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S 12 VILLAGE 1107 CORONADO, INC., CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDER 13 Defendant. 14 15 On March 29, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why Plaintiff 16 Peter Strojnik should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court’s Order 17 to pay attorney’s fees in this action. (ECF No. 27.) Mr. Strojnik was required to show 18 cause by April 5, 2021, either by filing a sworn affidavit affirming that he paid the 19 attorney’s fees or a response to the OSC explaining his noncompliance. (Id.) Mr. Strojnik 20 did not file any affidavits or responses to the OSC by this date. The Court now turns to 21 whether Defendant has met its burden to hold Mr. Strojnik in contempt. 22 “A district court has the power to adjudge in civil contempt any person who willfully 23 disobeys a specific and definite order of the court.” Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 265 24 (9th Cir. 1984). “The contempt ‘need not be willful,’ and there is no good faith exception 25 to the requirement of obedience to a court order.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette 26 Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). 27 “To establish a prima facie case for civil contempt, the moving party must show, by 28 clear and convincing evidence, that the non-moving party disobeyed a specific and definite 1 |}court order, and that such disobedience was (1) beyond substantial compliance, and (2) not 2 based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the Court’s order.” DeMichiel v. 3 || AEG Live NJ, LLC, No. CV 16-00913-BRO (AGRx), 2017 WL 8114930, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 4 24, 2017) (citing In re Dual-Deck, 10 F.3d at 695). If the moving party makes its 5 || prima facie case, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to demonstrate an inability to 6 ||comply. Stone v. City & Cty. of S.F., 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992). The accused 7 party must demonstrate that it was unable to comply despite taking all reasonable steps to 8 ||do so. Jd. at 856. To determine whether the non-moving party has met its burden, the 9 || Court may consider evidence, including their history of noncompliance. /d. at 857. 10 Defendant states in its Application for an OSC that Mr. Strojnik had not paid the 11 required attorney’s fees despite repeated reminders. (ECF No. 26.) However, Defendant 12 || provides no evidence in support of this assertion and instead raises it only as a statement 13 its Application. See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Kutzner, No. SACV 16-00999-BRO-AFMx, 14 WL 2985397, at *8 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2017) (citing Fed. Trade Comm’n v. 15 || Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999) (the “well settled” civil contempt 16 || standard requires the moving party to provide “clear and convincing evidence’”’)), aff'd sub 17 ||nom. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Marshall, 781 F. App’x 599 (9th Cir. 2019); cf Perez v. i2a 18 || Techs., Inc., No. C 15-04963 WHA, 2015 WL 7753330, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) 19 || (finding sworn statements from employees constituted clear and convincing evidence to 20 || hold defendant in contempt of temporary restraining order requiring payment of wages). 21 Because Defendant has not presented clear and convincing evidence of Mr. 22 || Strojnik’s failure to pay attorney’s fees, the Court cannot find Mr. Strojnik in contempt of 23 || violating this Order. Defendant may submit such evidence to support a finding of contempt 24 or before April 20, 2021. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 , [| 27 || DATED: April 12, 2021 Cyillig _| Hohe wk 28 United States District Judge