Invesco High Yield Fund v. Hans Jecklin, 10 F.4th 900

Plaintiffs obtained a post-judgment order compelling discovery on May 28, 2020; Jecklin failed to provide any discovery responses.
Jecklin, through counsel, expressly refused to comply, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction and that its orders were not enforceable in Switzerland.
The district court found Jecklin in civil contempt (March 31, 2021) and issued an arrest warrant (April 1, 2021); Jecklin appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of the motion to compel, the contempt finding, and related procedural issues for abuse of discretion.
The court addressed (1) due process protections afforded before a civil contempt finding, (2) whether plaintiffs proved contempt by clear and convincing evidence, (3) whether the motion to compel was proper as post-judgment discovery under Rule 69, and (4) a speculative challenge about simultaneous fines and imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process for contempt	Jecklin received notice and reasonable time to prepare; no additional protections required	Jecklin argued he was denied due process and needed an order to show cause/Rule 42 protections	Court: No denial of due process; order to show cause not required in civil contempt; no hearing required where facts not disputed
Sufficiency of contempt proof	Plaintiffs: clear and convincing evidence Jecklin violated a specific, definite court order	Jecklin: asserted noncompliance was justified by jurisdictional objection	Court: Plaintiffs met clear-and-convincing burden; counsel’s categorical refusal showed noncompliance
Validity of motion to compel as post-judgment discovery	Plaintiffs: entitled to post-judgment discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69; judgment was a money judgment	Jecklin: challenged procedural/local-rule compliance and characterization of the judgment	Court: No abuse of discretion; minor local-rule shortcoming excused; judgment sufficiently definite to be a money judgment for Rule 69
Risk of simultaneous sanctions (fine + imprisonment)	Plaintiffs implicitly treated the issue as premature; enforcement discretionary	Jecklin: simultaneous $1,000/day fine and confinement would be excessive without specific findings	Court: Concern is speculative while Jecklin is abroad; district court may amend or make findings later; issue not decided now

Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 1996) (appeals jurisdiction and contempt-review authority)
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for motions to compel)
United States v. Powers, 629 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1980) (notice and reasonable time required for contempt procedures)
In re Grand Jury Proc., 801 F.2d 1164 (9th Cir. 1986) (review of contempt findings under §1826)
United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 1999) (no evidentiary hearing needed when contempt does not turn on disputed facts)
FTC v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) (civil contempt requires clear and convincing proof)
Stone v. City & County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992) (same standard for contempt proof)
In re Braughton, 520 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1975) (categorical refusals justify contempt enforcement)
Ministry of Def. v. Cubic Def. Sys., Inc., 665 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (defining "money judgment" for post-judgment discovery under Rule 69)
Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1992) (sanctions should be the minimum necessary to secure compliance)
In re Grand Jury Impaneled Jan. 21, 1975, 529 F.2d 543 (3d Cir. 1976) (concurrent monetary and custodial sanctions require record findings)
West v. United States, 853 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2017) (construing notice of appeal to include specified orders)