628 F.3d 837
7th Cir.2010Background
- National Spiritual Assembly seeks contempt against nonparties from the Hereditary Guardianship era for allegedly violating a 1966 injunction.
- In 1966 Judge Austin held the Hereditary Guardianship had exclusive Bahá’í marks and enjoined use by related groups and individuals.
- The nonparties argued they were not in privity with the Hereditary Guardianship and thus not bound by the injunction.
- The district court rejected Merriam’s “legal identity” approach to bind nonparties; the Seventh Circuit now reconciles Alemite and Merriam.
- This appeal focuses on whether nonparties Marangella, Schlatter, Provisional National Council, Second International Council, and Bahá’í Publishers are bound by 1966 injunctive terms.
- The court endorses a Merriam-style, but carefully bounded, privity analysis consistent with due process and Presbyterian Church constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Merriam’s ‘legal identity’ approach is valid. | National Spiritual Assembly relies on Merriam to bind nonparties. | Defendants argue Merriam is not applicable or overbroad given due process. | Merriam is valid in principle; however, facts here do not establish privity for these nonparties. |
| Whether the 1966 injunction can bind nonparties absent privity. | Nonparties are bound as successors or legally identified with the enjoined party. | Nonparties lack adequate identity with the Hereditary Guardianship to be bound. | Privity exists only where nonparties are closely identified with the enjoined party and had their day in court; most here are not. |
| Whether due-process constraints limit binding nonparties when underlying church doctrine is at stake. | Injunctions may bind nonparties through privity or aiders-and abettors. | Resolving religious succession issues in civil contempt violates Kedroff/Presbyterian Church principles. | The district court’s findings complied with due process; Merriam-based binding is limited and not violated overall. |
| Whether Jensen's role can bind Second International Council and Bahá’í Publishers via privity. | Jensen’s long involvement suggests legal identity with Hereditary Guardianship. | Jensen’s disassociation and lack of ongoing governance break privity. | Jensen did not establish privity; those entities are not bound. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alemite Manufacturing Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832 (2d Cir. 1930) (nonparties may be bound only if they abet or are legally identical with a party)
- G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., 639 F.2d 29 (1st Cir. 1980) (key employee can be bound when closely identified with enjoined entity)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969) (nonparty must be given opportunity to contest privity before contempt)
- Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9 (1945) (privity concept bounded by due process)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (adequate-representation privity concepts; day-in-court ideal)
- Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) (First Amendment limits on civil resolution of religious disputes)
- Flowdata, Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 154 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (recognizes Merriam as aligning with nonparty privity theories)
- Rockwell Graphic Sys., Inc. v. DEV Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 1996) (contempt and privity concepts in corporate context)
- Reich v. Sea Sprite Boat Co., 50 F.3d 413 (7th Cir. 1995) (president bound when personally directs evasion of injunction)