U.S. Bank National Association v. Poblete
Civil Action No. 2015-0312
| D.D.C. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- U.S. Bank obtained title to 1921 Rosedale St. N.E., D.C., via foreclosure in 2010; Poblete repeatedly recorded documents attempting to cloud that title.
- The Court entered a final injunction on Feb. 14, 2017, enjoining Poblete from recording documents relating to the Property or claiming any interest or possession in it.
- Despite the injunction, on April 12, 2017 Poblete recorded a document titled “UCC Financing Statement” asserting ownership/secured-party status in the Property.
- Plaintiff notified Poblete and demanded termination of the Financing Statement; Poblete’s filings to the court were nonresponsive and invoked incoherent sovereign-citizen style arguments.
- Plaintiff moved for civil contempt under Rule 70(e); the Court found clear violation by clear and convincing evidence and granted the motion.
- As sanctions the Court (1) voided the UCC Financing Statement, (2) declared void any future documents recorded by Poblete regarding the Property, and (3) appointed plaintiff’s counsel Aaron D. Neal as trustee solely to execute and record releases/terminations to clear title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Poblete violated a clear court order by recording the UCC Financing Statement | The April 2017 recording violated the Feb. 2017 injunction prohibiting recording and asserting any interest | Poblete did not offer a factual or legal justification; his filings asserted exotic jurisdictional claims and did not dispute the recording | Court: Yes. The February 2017 Order was clear; recording the Financing Statement proved contempt by clear and convincing evidence |
| Standard and burden for civil contempt | Plaintiff: must prove violation of a clear order by clear and convincing evidence | Poblete: (implicitly) contested court authority via incoherent filings; offered no evidence to rebut violation | Court: Adopted established standard; once plaintiff made prima facie showing burden shifted to Poblete, who failed to justify noncompliance |
| Appropriate remedial sanction for contempt | Monetary fines unlikely effective; requested voiding the statement, declaration that future filings are void, and appointment of plaintiff’s counsel as trustee to record releases | Poblete offered no viable alternatives or defenses | Court: Sanctions tailored to coerce compliance and protect title—voided recorded statement, voided future filings by Poblete, appointed counsel as limited trustee under Rule 70(a) |
| Whether a separate evidentiary hearing was required before civil contempt finding | Plaintiff: hearing not required where no genuine factual dispute | Poblete: did not assert material factual disputes or seek evidentiary hearing | Court: Not required; notice and opportunity to be heard sufficed given lack of disputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Parsi v. Daioleslam, 778 F.3d 116 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (courts’ inherent power to sanction abuses of judicial process)
- Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 62 F.3d 1469 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (district court discretion to craft sanctions for contempt)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (equitable and inherent powers to protect court’s integrity)
- Broderick v. Donaldson, 437 F.3d 1226 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (civil contempt requires clear and unambiguous order and clear-and-convincing proof of violation)
- Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President, Office of Admin., 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (courts’ inherent power to enforce compliance with orders)
- Salazar v. District of Columbia, 602 F.3d 431 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (reiterating clear-and-unambiguous requirement for contempt)
- Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Phila. Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64 (1967) (judicial contempt power is potent and requires clear orders)