Re: Bob L - contempt

[Jim Rojas <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is odd. Sableman hasn't filed any motions in a couple of weeks now.
He is either on vacation or finally emptied Brinks attorney enrichment
fund. Sableman might be waiting until after the first of the new year,
when they allocated the new budget.

Jim Rojas



Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> 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.
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com