Case 8:12-cv-01866-JVS-AN Document 25

Filed 01/08/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:217

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title

SACV 12-01866 JVS (ANx) Brandi Passante v. Hunter Moore, et al.

Date

January 8, 2013

Present: The Honorable

James V. Selna Karla J. Tunis Deputy Clerk Sharon Seffens Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Defendants: No Appearance

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Linda McAleer Proceedings:

Hearing re Order to Show Cause re: Civil Contempt

Cause called and counsel for plaintiff makes her appearance. The Court notes there is no appearance on behalf of defendant in this matter and nothing has been filed in response to the Order to Show Cause. The Court’s tentative ruling is issued. The Court and counsel confer. The Court finds the defendant in Civil Contempt and rules in accordance with the tentative ruling as follows: On December 14, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re: Civil Contempt directing defendant Hunter Moore (“Moore”) to show why he should not be held in contempt for violating the Preliminary Injunction, entered filed November 20, 2012. (Docket No. 17.) Among other things, the Preliminary Injunction required Moore to remove his internet postings of images of plaintiff Brandi Passante (“Passante”). Moore has not responded to the Order to Show Cause. I. Legal Standard.

The Ninth Circuit has summarized this Circuit’s law of contempt in In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litigation, 10 F.3d 693, 95 (9th Cir. 1993): Civil contempt in this context consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply. The contempt need not be willful, and there is no good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order. But a person should not be held in contempt if his action appears to be based on a
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 3

Case 8:12-cv-01866-JVS-AN Document 25

Filed 01/08/13 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:218

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title

SACV 12-01866 JVS (ANx) Brandi Passante v. Hunter Moore, et al.

Date

January 8, 2013

good faith and reasonable interpretation of the [court’s order]. Substantial compliance with the court order is a defense to civil contempt, and is not vitiated by a few technical violations where every reasonable effort has been made to comply. (Internal citations and quotation marks deleted; emphasis supplied.) Having initiated this proceeding, Passante bears the burden of proving contempt by clear and convincing evidence. Id.; KSM Fastening Systems, Inc. v. H.A. Jones Co., Inc., 776 F.2d 1522, 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1985). II. Findings and Conclusions. The Court makes the following factual findings: 1. Moore received actual notice of the entry of the Preliminary Injunction. (Docket No. 20.) 2. Moore received actual notice of the Court’s Order to Show Cause re contempt. (Docket No. 24.) 3. Moore had the actual ability to comply with the Preliminary Injunction. Having posted the images of Passante on his internet sites, he has the ability to remove them. 4. Moore has failed to comply with the Preliminary injunction. (Docket No. 18, Exs. A, B.) 5. Moore’s failure to comply with the Preliminary Injunction is wilful. The Court adopts the following conclusions of law: 1. Each of the Court’s factual findings is supported by clear and convincing evidence. 2. Moore is in wilful contempt of the Preliminary Injunction.
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 2 of 3

Case 8:12-cv-01866-JVS-AN Document 25

Filed 01/08/13 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:219

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title

SACV 12-01866 JVS (ANx) Brandi Passante v. Hunter Moore, et al.

Date

January 8, 2013

3. Passante is entitled to her fees and expenses in bringing the application for contempt. Perry v. O’Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 704 (9th Cir. 1985). III. Relief. The Court grants the following relief: 1. After the date Moore receives notice of this Order, if he has failed to purge his contempt by complying with the Preliminary Injunction: • He shall pay a fine of $50 per day for each day in non-compliance for the first seven days; • He shall pay a fine of $100 per day for each day in non-compliance after the first seven days. These sanctions are imposed solely for the purpose of compelling Moore’s compliance with the Preliminary Injunction. 2. If Moore has not purged his contempt within 14 days of receipt of notice of this Order, a bench warrant shall issue for his arrest, and he shall be transported to the Central District of California, Southern Division. 3. Passante shall file with the Court evidence of the date that Moore actually received notice of this Order. 4. Passante may apply to the Court for attorney’s fees and expenses in pursuing her successful application for contempt. The application shall be in sufficient detail for the Court to make the usual lodestar analysis. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998).
: Initials of Preparer kjt 03

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful