Third District Affirms Contempt Order, But Reverses Fee Order On Due Process Grounds.
For those of you having an interest in contempt proceedings (which are quasi-criminal in nature), the next case is for you. It also reinforces that fee awards must be crafted with regard to giving an opponent adequate due process rights.
In Thompson v. Superior Court (Maxim Crane Works, L.P.), Case No. C060210 (3d Dist. June 25, 2009 ) (unpublished), Maxim won an injunction contempt order against some individuals who sold their stock in a company to Maxim and agreed to some noncompete restrictions. The trial court issued an injunction and then found the individuals in contempt for violating the injunction. The lower court also awarded $67,392.84 in reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees on the very day it signed the contempt order. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1218(a) does provide that “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” can be awarded against a person adjudged guilty of contempt for violating a court order, if those expenses were connected with the contempt proceeding.) However, the supplemental declaration detailing the fees and costs was provided the same day as the contempt order was signed.
The individuals challenged the contempt order and fee award through a certiorari petition. (Yep, that is how you do it; a contempt judgment is not appealable. See Imuta v. Nakano, 233 Cal.App.3d 1570, 1584 n. 18 (1991).)
Brigitte Bardot in Le Mepris [Contempt].
The Third District issued certiorari to review the proceedings, but ultimately affirmed the contempt order but reversed the fee award.
The fee award was reversed and remanded based on due process grounds. Because petitioners had no opportunity to challenge the amount of fees and costs and the supporting declaration provided no details to permit an examination of their reasonableness, the appellate panel found this summary procedure to be “unacceptable.” “While Maxim’s application for an order to show cause re contempt gave petitioners notice that Maxim sought attorney fees, petitioners had no notice of or opportunity to contest the amount before the court signed the contempt order.” (Slip Opn., at p. 25.)
BLOG BONUS COVERAGE—This decision, even though unpublished, has a nice discussion about contempt proceedings, elaborating on jurisdictional issues, ways to properly challenge the underlying injunction rather than a collateral attack, the collateral bar rule (which California does not follow), disobedience of a void versus erroneous injunction, and the record that must be created for direct versus indirect contempt orders.
(Yes, we bloggers do read the full opinions, merits as well as fee issues.)