State of Texas v. Calvin, 4:14-cv-00654

Court entered default judgment and permanent injunction on April 13, 2015, finding Calvin (among others) violated TCPA and related statutes and awarding damages and fees.
Calvin sworn (Apr. 24, 2015) that he received and read the Final Judgment and permanent injunction.
State moved (June 25, 2019) to show cause that Calvin continued illegal telemarketing (carpet-cleaning calls) in violation of the injunction; State submitted declarations from call recipients.
Court ordered service and response; State attempted service by certified mail (returned undeliverable), email, Facebook Messenger, and text; Calvin did not respond or appear at the Nov. 6, 2019 show-cause hearing.
Magistrate found evidence of contempt and that the State provided adequate notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, certified the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6), and recommended Judge O’Connor hold a contempt hearing once Calvin is arrested or at a time set by the district judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Calvin violated the permanent injunction by making telemarketing calls	State: declarations show numerous calls advertising carpet-cleaning in violation of injunction	Calvin: no responsive argument presented; could assert lack of notice/service or deny calls	Magistrate: found calls occurred and injunction violated; elements of civil contempt satisfied
Whether Calvin failed to comply with court show-cause orders to respond and appear	State: Calvin ignored Orders dated June 27 and Sept. 19, 2019 and failed to appear	Calvin: no response; could argue he never received proper service	Magistrate: found Calvin failed to respond and appear, violating the Orders
Whether service/notice was adequate	State: mailed pleadings to last-known addresses and used email, Facebook, and text; Rule 5(b)(2)(C) makes service complete on mailing	Calvin: certified mail returned; may argue insufficient actual notice	Magistrate: found service adequate under Rule 5 and relevant authorities despite returned mail because State took multiple reasonable steps
Whether magistrate may adjudicate contempt or must certify to district judge	State proceeded under §636(e) and requested contempt relief	N/A—procedural question; parties’ consent not given	Magistrate: under §636(e)(6) must certify facts to district judge and recommended Judge O’Connor conduct the contempt hearing

United States v. City of Jackson, 359 F.3d 727 (5th Cir.) (elements required to establish civil contempt)
Daniels v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, [citation="574 F. App'x 337"] (5th Cir.) (service by mail is complete upon mailing even if returned)
Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.) (failure to file specific objections bars appellate review except for plain error)