Re: Bob L - contempt

["Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for taking the time to explain it in a manner even I can understand.

Doug

--

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9b1882e02e5e36416d34ad9afd5a1591@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >So someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a
>>default judgment along with preliminary injunction and temporary
>>restraining
>>order had already been made, and I was further under the impression that
>>the
>>contempt hearing was for Jim allegedly ignoring the preliminary
>>injunction.
>>
>>My knowledge of the law is very limited but I'm not sure how a civil
>>contempt motion could be made, if a judgment of some sort hadn't already
>>been made against Jim.
>
> A default has been recorded against Jim, meaning that he is no longer able
> to argue the merits of the case against him.  All of the allegations made
> by Brink's are now considered to be true, because Jim didn't challenge
> them
> in the legally correct fashion at the appropriate time.
>
> However, that is not a default judgment.  Judgments are for specific
> amounts of money.  There has to be a hearing where Brink's proves its
> damages.  Jim can challenge the amount, if he likes.  Then, the court
> issues a judgment against Jim, ordering him to pay a specific amount to
> Brink's.
>
> Earlier in the case, Brink's obtained a temporary restraining order, which
> Jim did not oppose.  That required Jiim not to disclose Brink's trade
> secrets, post their manuals, post unlock codes, and so on.  That TRO was
> later converted into a preliminary injunction.  That is an order from the
> court not to do something.  It's called "preliminary" because there hasn't
> been a final judgment in the case, and theoretically, it could disappear
> if
> somehow Jim managed to win his case.
>
> Brink's felt Jim had violated that preliminary injunction, so it went back
> to court asking that Jim be held in "civil contempt" for violating the
> court's order.  This has nothing to do with the final judgment; it's about
> whether he disobeyed a court order.
>
> Contempt comes in two flavors, criminal and civil.
>
> Criminal contempt's purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court.
> It's a crime, and may be punished by a fine or by jail time.  Flip off the
> judge in court, and you'll get thrown in a jail cell.
>
> Civil contempt's purpose is to benefit one party in a civil case when the
> other party has disobeyed a court order.  The purpose of civil contempt is
> either to compensate a party for damages he has suffered due to
> disobedience of the court order, or to coerce future compliance with the
> order.
>
> Here, if Brink's wanted to be compensated, it would have to prove the
> amount of damages it had suffered because Jim violated the preliminary
> injunction, assuming he did so.  Probably the only damages Brink's could
> prove would be the attorney's fees related to the contempt motion.  If
> they
> wanted to claim damages due to Jim allegedly disclosing lockout codes,
> they'd have to prove the losses they had suffered as a result, not just
> pull some number out of their ass.  Jim could challenge the amount, if
> they
> ever filed such a claim.
>
> That leaves coercive civil contempt, an enforcement system designed to get
> Jim to comply with the injunction in the future.  This could start as a
> fine of $xxx per day until he complies.  However, this would require proof
> that Jim is continuing to violate the injunction (note:  we're not arguing
> about whether the injunction is justified, just whether Jim is obeying
> what
> is currently the order of the court) and how we can determine when he has
> complied with the injunction, so that the fines will stop.   Continued
> disobedience of a court's order can be punished by jail time, but the
> defendant holds the keys to his cell:  since the purpose is to obtain
> compliance with the court's order, compliance gets him out of jail.
>
> The purpose of civil contempt is to compensate and coerce.  Once the
> purpose turns into punishment, it becomes criminal contempt, and the
> protections of the Constitution and the criminal law apply.
>