Securities & Exchange Commission v. Bilzerian
729 F. Supp. 2d 9
D.D.C.2010Background
- Bilzerian was civilly contemned in 2009 for violating a 2001 injunction blocking filings in certain courts; Hammer acted on Bilzerian and was found in contempt in 2010 for continuing to pursue litigation in violation of the 2001 Order; Hammer previously misrepresented compliance and had a history of court-reprimanded conduct; the 2010 contempt purge required Hammer to cease representation in Steffen and Puma matters and to file a sworn compliance statement; Hammer withdrawn from Steffen and Puma shortly before the 2010 order but not timely; the court held that a contempt order against Hammer was proper and not subject to vacatur under standard Rule 59/60 grounds; this memorandum addresses Hammer’s first and second motions to vacate the contempt orders
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hammer’s 59(e) motion is warranted by newly available evidence | Hammer argues withdrawals from Steffen and Puma are newly available evidence | Court rejected as not newly available evidence; withdrawals occurred late | Denied; evidence not extraordinary sufficient for 59(e) relief |
| Whether Hammer’s Rule 60(b)(1) mistake claim warrants relief | Hammer claims the court erred by not considering withdrawals | Carelessness not a ground for 60(b)(1) relief; no extraordinary circumstance | Denied; no justification for relief under 60(b)(1) |
| Whether Hammer’s Rule 60(b)(5) hardship claim justifies vacation | Applying the order prospectively is inequitable due to hardship | Hardship alone not extraordinary; actions show disregard for orders | Denied; not an extraordinary basis for relief under 60(b)(5) |
| Whether Hammer’s second motion is time-barred under 60(c)(1) and substantive arguments | Claims newly discovered behavior could justify relief under 60(b)(2) | Motion filed outside 60(c)(1) window and previously addressed under 59(e) | Denied; time-barred and merits rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc., 487 U.S. 72 (1988) (nonparty contempt appealable despite no final merits judgment)
- White v. N.H. Dep't of Empl't Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (Rule 59(e) correction after mistaken order)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (interim grounds for 59(e) relief; extraordinary circumstances required)
- Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc., 810 F.2d 243 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (60(b)(6) cannot bypass 60(c)(1) time limits for 60(1)-(3))
- Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128 (D.C.Cir. 2003) (civil contempt typically reviewed on final appeal; exceptions exist)