Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. v. Dennis Michael Philipson

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee charges Defendant Dennis Michael Philipson with criminal contempt under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 401(3). The order identifies alleged disobedience of court orders, failures to appear or respond, violations of a permanent injunction, and failures to produce materials. It refers the criminal contempt matter to the Clerk’s Office for assignment to another judge, who will oversee the criminal proceedings.

Holdings

1. The court charged Defendant with criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) based on repeated disobedience of the court's lawful orders and referred the charge for further criminal proceedings.
2. The court proceeded under Rule 42(a)'s notice-and-trial procedure because the alleged contempt did not require immediate summary punishment, even though some conduct might have supported summary contempt under Rule 42(b).
3. Defendant's pending appeals did not divest the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with either civil or criminal contempt proceedings based on violations of the district court's orders.
4. The criminal contempt matter had to be referred to another judge for assignment because Rule 42(a)(3) requires disqualification when the contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of the judge, unless the defendant consents.
5. The same conduct may support both civil and criminal contempt sanctions because civil contempt is coercive or compensatory while criminal contempt is punitive and vindicates the court's authority.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should charge Defendant with criminal contempt for repeated deliberate disobedience of the court's orders under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 401(3).
2. Whether the court should use Rule 42(a)'s notice-and-trial procedure rather than summary punishment under Rule 42(b).
3. Whether Defendant's pending appeals divested the district court of jurisdiction to initiate criminal contempt proceedings.
4. Whether the criminal contempt matter should be referred to another judge because Rule 42(a)(3) requires disqualification when the contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of the presiding judge.

Disposition

other