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