571 B.R. 581
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- The U.S. Trustee moved for a civil contempt order against Chaledeeannka Deborah Ann Williams Goyens‑Bell Eberwein ("Goyens") for filing a 62‑page "Request for Notice" on ECF despite a prior Permanent Injunction barring her from filing any documents in bankruptcy cases without leave.
- The Permanent Injunction (entered in an adversary proceeding in 2013) permanently enjoined Goyens from filing any new bankruptcy cases or any document in any bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding without prior leave of the presiding bankruptcy judge, based on long‑standing abusive litigation and use of aliases.
- The U.S. Trustee served the contempt motion and no objections were filed; Goyens did not appear at the June 29, 2017 hearing. The Velez‑Rivera declaration and exhibits were admitted.
- The Court found (and had previously found) that Goyens received notice of the Permanent Injunction and nevertheless caused the Request for Notice to be filed without seeking leave.
- The Court concluded Goyens willfully violated the clear, unambiguous injunction, entered a contempt order imposing daily monetary sanctions (subject to removal of the filing from public view if not withdrawn), and suggested referral for possible criminal contempt if misconduct continued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Goyens had notice of the Permanent Injunction | U.S. Trustee: Notice of entry was filed and served; Goyens had actual/constructive notice | Goyens: no argument presented at hearing | Court: Goyens had adequate notice |
| Whether filing the Request for Notice violated the Permanent Injunction | U.S. Trustee: The Request is a "document" filed without leave, violating the injunction | Goyens: no opposition or leave sought | Court: Filing violated the injunction |
| Whether the injunction was clear and unambiguous | U.S. Trustee: Injunction expressly bars "any document" without leave | Goyens: no defense that the injunction was unclear | Court: Injunction was crystal clear |
| Whether contempt sanctions were appropriate (willfulness, proof, and diligence) | U.S. Trustee: Clear-and-convincing proof of violation; Goyens made no effort to comply or seek leave; sanctions necessary to compel compliance | Goyens: no showing of attempted compliance or justification | Court: Willful contempt shown; sanctions and possible criminal referral appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re MF Global Holdings Ltd., 562 B.R. 41 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (bankruptcy courts have power to enter civil contempt orders)
- In re Millennium Seacarriers, Inc., 419 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.) (bankruptcy courts retain jurisdiction to enforce their orders)
- Maritime Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.), 920 F.2d 183 (2d Cir.) (statutory and inherent authority to enforce bankruptcy orders)
- Caldwell v. Unified Capital Corp. (In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc.), 77 F.3d 278 (9th Cir.) (bankruptcy court contempt power)
- Mountain Am. Credit Union v. Skinner, 917 F.2d 444 (10th Cir.) (contempt proceedings arising from core matters are core)
- EEOC v. Local 580, 925 F.2d 588 (2d Cir.) (three‑part test for civil contempt: clear order, clear-and-convincing proof, lack of reasonable diligence)
- Levin v. Tiber Holding Corp., 277 F.3d 243 (2d Cir.) (clear-and-convincing standard explained in contempt context)
- In re Chief Exec. Officers Clubs, Inc., 359 B.R. 527 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (contempt requires failure to diligently attempt compliance)
- Monsanto Co. v. Haskel Trading, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 2d 349 (E.D.N.Y.) (clarity requirement for injunctive orders)