Jacob Westley Lara and Tobitha Ann Lara, 16-50201

Debtors Jacob and Tobitha Lara filed Chapter 7; they rejected a Vivint home-security lease and notified Vivint of the bankruptcy and automatic stay. Vivint continued collection efforts and attempted collection after the Laras received discharge.
On March 27, 2017 the bankruptcy court found Vivint willfully violated the automatic stay and discharge injunction and awarded $500 in actual damages, $24,000 in punitive damages, and $7,480 in attorney’s fees to the Laras.
The Memorandum Opinion and Order were served on Vivint’s registered agent/counsel by certified mail; Vivint did not pay or respond before the case closed on April 17, 2017.
The Laras moved to reopen the case and filed a show-cause motion seeking contempt for Vivint’s failure to pay the award; notice and hearing were served and the court reopened the case.
Vivint did not appear at the June 21, 2017 hearing. The Laras sought additional actual damages, large punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and arrest orders for Vivint’s principals for contempt.
The core question presented was whether civil contempt is a proper remedy to enforce the court’s prior money-damages order (rather than pursuing execution procedures).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether contempt is proper to enforce the March 27 money-damages order	Lara: Vivint’s failure to respond/pay justifies contempt for disobedience and further sanctions	Vivint: The order is a money judgment; enforcement should proceed via execution, not contempt	Court: The order is a money judgment; contempt is not appropriate as the first remedy—use execution procedures (Rule 7069/Fed. R. Civ. P. 69)
2. Whether the court may award damages for violations of the discharge injunction akin to § 362(k) stay damages	Lara: Court may and did treat discharge violations like stay violations and award damages	Vivint: (Implicit) scope of § 362(k) limited to stay; challenge enforcement method	Court: It previously awarded damages for discharge violations as it commonly occurs; that award stands, but enforcement must follow judgment-collection rules
3. Whether Vivint’s silence constitutes a continuing violation warranting contempt	Lara: Continued silence/nonpayment after service shows ongoing noncompliance supporting contempt	Vivint: Silence is not an affirmative continuing violation; no turnover or specified act to enforce	Court: Laras did not allege a continuing violation requiring contempt; prior order imposed money damages without an injunctive act, so contempt is not justified

Garrett v. Coventry II DDR/Trademark Montgomery Farm, L.P., 777 F.3d 792 (5th Cir.) (describing core bankruptcy proceedings and contempt context)
Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig, 106 F.3d 165 (7th Cir. 1997) (distinguishing contempt for sanctions from enforcement of ordinary money judgments)
Andrews v. Roadway Express Inc., 473 F.3d 565 (5th Cir.) (judgment enforcement procedures and Rule 69 practice)
Penn Terra Ltd. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Res., 733 F.2d 267 (3d Cir. 1984) (definition and essential elements of a money judgment)
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (U.S.) (characterizing suits seeking sums as money judgments)