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
- The court imposed cumulative monetary civil contempt sanctions totaling $68,000, corresponding to the previously specified sanctions for five days of noncompliance.
- 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.
- 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
- What civil contempt sanction was appropriate after the court found Darren Rose violated the preliminary injunction?
- Whether the court should impose a custodial sanction in addition to or instead of monetary sanctions.
- 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 PDFLoading document…