729 F.Supp.2d 9
D.D.C.2010Background
- This case concerns David E. Hammer’s verified motions to vacate civil contempt orders related to Bilzerian litigation and an injunction from 2001 governing filings in courts.
- Bilzerian was previously enjoined from filing or pursuing certain lawsuits without this Court’s permission; Hammer acted on Bilzerian’s behalf.
- In 2009 the Court held Bilzerian and Hammer in civil contempt for violating the 2001 Order by pursuing several lawsuits.
- The Court then ordered Hammer to purge by withdrawing from Steffen and Puma matters and to file a compliance statement.
- Hammer later disclosed withdrawals, but the Court found those actions did not cure the 2001 Order violations and denied relief.
- The Court analyzed Hammer’s motions under Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b), noting contempt orders are interlocutory but this nonparty contempt is appealable, and ultimately denied the motions to vacate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hammer’s 59(e) motion is appropriate for newly available evidence. | Hammer argues withdrawals from Steffen and Puma constitute newly available evidence. | Court should consider withdrawals as new evidence warranting relief. | Denied; withdrawals were not newly available evidence justifying relief. |
| Whether Hammer’s 60(b)(1) claim of mistake warrants relief. | Hammer contends the Court failed to consider evidence, constituting a mistake. | No extraordinary circumstance; error insufficient for relief. | Denied; not an extraordinary circumstance. |
| Whether Hammer’s 60(b)(5) hardship argument warrants relief. | Applying the 2010 Order prospectively is no longer equitable due to hardship. | Hardship alone does not justify relief; Hammer delayed remedial actions. | Denied; hardship not extraordinary enough. |
| Whether Hammer’s Second Motion to Vacate is time-barred or previously addressed. | Argues new evidence and Rule 60(b)(2) claims may avoid time limits. | Claims time-barred and duplicative of prior arguments. | Denied; time-barred and duplicative. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72 (1988) (appealability of nonparty contempt orders; finality considerations)
- White v. N.H. Dept. of Empl’t Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) ( Rule 59(e) standards: correction of mistakes; extraordinary circumstances)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ( Rule 59(e) standard; extraordinary circumstances required)
- Kattan v. District of Columbia, 995 F.2d 274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (limits on reconsideration; not a vehicle for new arguments)
- Williamsburg War Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc., 810 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Rule 60(b)(6) interpretation and time limitations)
- Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (review of civil contempt and interlocutory orders)
- Ellipso, Inc. v. Mann, 583 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (context for Rule 59(e)/Rule 60(b) standards in this district)