880 F.3d 596
1st Cir.2018Background
- AngioDynamics obtained a $23 million New York judgment against Biolitec and related defendants and sought to enforce it in Massachusetts.
- The district court entered a preliminary injunction barring Biolitec AG from merging with an Austrian subsidiary; defendants completed the merger in violation of the injunction.
- The district court imposed escalating contempt sanctions (fines and an arrest warrant for CEO Neuberger) to coerce compliance; this Court affirmed but remanded to cap fines.
- Subsequent discovery violations produced additional sanctions including default judgment and large damages; this Court affirmed those sanctions in earlier appeals.
- After this Court’s decision affirming a revised contempt order (capping contempt liability at $70 million), defendants filed a Rule 60 motion arguing the preliminary injunction had expired and therefore the contempt orders should be vacated.
- The district court denied the Rule 60 motion; the First Circuit affirmed, holding defendants’ arguments were waived/law-of-the-case and that Rule 60 relief was unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants may use Rule 60 to vacate contempt sanctions because the underlying preliminary injunction expired | AngioDynamics: contempt sanctions remain valid and coercive to preserve assets to satisfy judgment | Defendants: injunction expired by its terms so contempt lost its coercive basis and must be vacated under Rule 60 | Court: Defendants waived this argument; law of the case bars reconsideration; Rule 60 relief not available |
| Applicability of Rule 60(a) | Motion does not allege clerical or minor errors warranting correction | Defendants invoked Rule 60(a) as basis for relief | Court: Rule 60(a) inapplicable (covers clerical/copying/computational mistakes) |
| Applicability of Rule 60(b)(5) (prospective relief) | Plaintiff: sanctions remain coercive and not "satisfied, released, or discharged"; no reversal/vacatur | Defendants: continued prospective enforcement is inequitable given changed circumstances/injunction expiration | Court: Rule 60(b)(5) does not apply; no changed law or facts shown; relief would be inequitable to AngioDynamics |
| Whether contempt sanctions are punitive (constitutional concern) | AngioDynamics: sanctions are civil/coercive to secure assets, not punitive | Defendants: continued enforcement amounts to punitive contempt violating due process | Court: Rejected defendants; sanctions retain coercive character and constitutional claim rehashes waived arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG, 711 F.3d 248 (1st Cir.) (affirming preliminary injunction)
- AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG, 780 F.3d 420 (1st Cir.) (affirming contempt sanctions, remanding to cap fines)
- AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG, 780 F.3d 429 (1st Cir.) (affirming sanctions and default judgment for discovery violations)
- AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG, 823 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (affirming revised contempt order capping liability)
- Ellis v. United States, 313 F.3d 636 (1st Cir.) (law-of-the-case doctrine explained)
- Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (change-in-law-or-fact standard for modifying prospective relief)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (standards for modifying injunctive relief)
- United States v. Marquardo, 149 F.3d 36 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing civil/coercive from criminal contempt)
- Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966) (civil contempt coercive character described)