State of California v. Phillip Del Rosa et al.

No. 2:23-cv-0743-KJM-SCR · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · August 15, 2025 · No. No. 2:23-cv-0743-KJM-SCR

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California imposed civil contempt sanctions on Darren Rose for violating a preliminary injunction concerning cigarette deliveries allegedly made in violation of the PACT Act. The court ordered Rose to pay cumulative sanctions of $68,000 personally within seven days and declined to impose a custodial sanction at that time. The court also established procedures for California to seek a revised prospective sanctions order addressing future violations.

Holdings

  1. The court imposed cumulative monetary civil contempt sanctions totaling $68,000, corresponding to the previously specified sanctions for five days of noncompliance.
  2. The court declined to impose custody at that time because the prior order did not clearly specify how a custodial sanction could be purged and the documented violations did not warrant custody.
  3. Any revised prospective sanctions order must provide a clear timeline for document production and monetary sanctions, and any proposed custodial sanction must identify the action Rose could take to purge it; California was given thirty days to file such a proposal and defendants fourteen days to object.

Questions Presented

  1. What civil contempt sanction was appropriate after the court found Darren Rose violated the preliminary injunction?
  2. Whether the court should impose a custodial sanction in addition to or instead of monetary sanctions.
  3. What procedures and purge requirements would be necessary for any future prospective or custodial contempt sanctions.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (13)

  • California v. Azuma Corp., No. 23-16200, 2024 WL 4131831, at *2 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2024)(followed)
  • International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827, 829, 831 (1994)(followed)
  • United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 301-04 (1947)(followed)
  • Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1801-02 (2019)(followed)
  • Penfield Co. of California v. SEC, 330 U.S. 585, 590 (1947)(followed)
  • Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632-33 (1988)(followed)
  • United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991, 997 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Doyle v. London Guaranty & Accident Co., 204 U.S. 599, 606-08 (1907)(followed)
  • Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 801 (1987)(followed)
  • United States v. Wilson, 421 U.S. 309, 319 (1975)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…