Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Alton Bean Trucking, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division

April 4, 2019

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A. PLAINTIFF
v.
ALTON BEAN TRUCKING, INC. and GARY BEAN DEFENDANTS

          ORDER

          Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff BMO Harris Bank N.A.'s Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt. (ECF No. 24). On April 3, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the matter. The Court finds that no response is necessary and that the matter is ripe for consideration.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On November 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed this action, alleging that Defendants were in default under certain loan agreements and guarantees, and seeking replevin, specific performance, injunctive relief, and breach of contract damages. On April 4, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendants Alton Bean Trucking, Inc. and Gary Bean. On April 11, 2017, the Court entered default judgment against Defendants, ordering inter alia that they must deliver all retained collateral to Plaintiffs and, if not, the U.S. Marshal or appropriate sheriff should assist Plaintiff in gaining possession of the retained collateral. On March 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this case, stating that Defendants have not complied with the Court's judgment dated April 11, 2017, despite being served with the same, and that certain of the retained collateral remains in Defendants' possession. On March 4, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to reopen.

         On March 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to hold Defendants in civil contempt. Plaintiff requests that the Court impose coercive and compensatory penalties on Defendants in the amount of $165 per day, beginning on August 15, 2018, and continuing unless and until Defendants deliver the remainder of the retained collateral to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also requests that the Court award its attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion. On April 3, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the instant motion. Plaintiff and Defendants each appeared, represented by counsel.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff asks the Court to hold Defendants in civil contempt for failure to comply with the Court's April 11, 2017 judgment. To that end, Plaintiff requests that the Court impose coercive and compensatory penalties on Defendants in the amount of $165 per day, beginning on August 15, 2018, and continuing unless and until Defendants deliver the remainder of the retained collateral to Plaintiff, along with an award of attorneys' fees incurred by bringing the motion.

         “[I]t is firmly established that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (internal punctuation and citation omitted). Congress has provided federal courts with contempt powers as follows:

A court of the United States shall have such power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as-
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

18 U.S.C. § 401. Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70 provides means for “enforcing a judgment for a specific act.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 70. To this end, a court may, in its discretion, “hold the disobedient party in contempt” after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. Fed.R.Civ.P. 70(e); Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994). An overarching goal of a court's contempt power is “to ensure that litigants do not anoint themselves with the power to adjudge the validity of orders to which they are subject.” Chi. Truck Drivers v. Bhd. Labor Leasing, 207 F.3d 500, 505 (8th Cir. 2000).

         Two forms of contempt are recognized: civil and criminal. Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 827. “Most contempt sanctions . . . to some extent punish a prior offense as well as coerce an offender's future obedience.” Id. at 828. “[W]hether a contempt is civil or criminal turns on the ‘character and purpose' of the sanction involved.” Id. at 827. “Thus, a contempt sanction is considered civil if it is remedial, and for the benefit of the complainant.” Id. In ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.