487 F. App'x 580
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Appellants challenge a district court order imposing civil contempt sanctions and related rulings in Florida state-court actions that touched on their dismissals.
- The Florida Circuit Court dismissed Puma Foundation v. Haire (06-9816) as moot, impacting the district court’s sanctions for failure to dismiss that suit.
- Puma Foundation v. Hodges (09-CA-02180) was dismissed with prejudice, but a motion to vacate left a live controversy before the district court.
- Following the district court’s ruling, Puma voluntarily dismissed Hodges, rendering the contempt proceeding for commencement moot, though the contempt finding remained reviewable.
- Terri Steffen’s adversary action against Hodges in bankruptcy was dismissed without prejudice; Steffen did not withdraw a pending reconsideration motion, leaving potential mootness unresolved.
- Appellants argue mootness and jurisdiction issues; the court ultimately affirms in part and dismisses as moot in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions for failure to dismiss were moot | Puma argues mootness voids sanctions. | District court retained authority over contempt; mootness issues do not negate conduct. | Mootness vacates sanctions related to that dismissed suit. |
| Whether contempt for commencement of Puma Hodges suit remained viable after dismissal | Contempt tied to live controversy; dismissal with prejudice should moot it. | Live controversy persisted due to motion to vacate; contempt valid. | Contempt for commencement remains; dismissal as moot for this issue. |
| Whether Steffen’s bankruptcy action mootness affected contempt | Steffen’s dismissal without prejudice and pending reconsideration may moot contempt. | Dispositive issues not mooted by Steffen’s actions. | Contempt regarding this action not vacated by Steffen’s bankruptcy dismissal. |
| Whether the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose contempt | Lack of jurisdiction due to mootness in Florida actions. | District court had jurisdiction to sanction for contempt on its own motion. | Lacked jurisdiction determined or appropriately addressed as moot in relevant actions. |
| Whether the 2001 injunction violated rights of access to courts | Injunction infringes constitutional access. | Issue forfeited on appeal; improper to raise late. | Forfeited; arguments not considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loughlin v. United States, 393 F.3d 155 (D.C.Cir.2004) (vacatur for mootness when lower court lacked jurisdiction)
- Am. Bar Ass’n v. FTC, 636 F.3d 641 (D.C.Cir.2011) (vacatur generally inappropriate when mootness caused by party action)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (voluntary action causing mootness)
- Breeden v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 646 F.3d 43 (D.C.Cir.2011) (forfeiture of new arguments raised on appeal)
- SEC v. Bilzerian, 410 F. App’x 346 (D.C.Cir.2010) (jurisdiction to impose contempt on own motion)
- Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C.Cir.1993) (review of contempt abuse of discretion)
- Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 103 F.3d 1007 (D.C.Cir.1997) (need for discovery or evidentiary hearing in contempt)