1:25-mi-00057
N.D. Ga.Sep 18, 2025Background
- Underlying U.S. action in Alaska involved post-judgment discovery; U.S. obtained a money judgment on June 5, 2024 and seeks to collect.
- U.S. subpoenaed Respondent Global FG Enterprises, LLC in March 2025 to produce documents; response due April 23, 2025.
- Respondent provided no documents; non-attorney Warren filed on Respondent’s behalf, violating court rules about counsel admission.
- Court ordered Respondent to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for subpoena noncompliance; Respondent did not submit substantive response.
- Respondent later filed multiple so-called declarations and notices, all filed by non-attorneys and containing lists of claims rather than facts; these were stricken.
- Magistrate recommended contempt findings and sanctions, including costs, fees, daily fines, and possible incarceration if noncompliance continued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filings by non-attorneys were proper | Pltf argues Warren improperly represented Respondent and filings should be stricken | Riezinger's affiliates contend filings were authorized acts | Filings improper; stricken |
| Whether Respondent can be held in contempt for subpoena noncompliance | Respondent refused to comply with subpoena and order | Respondent asserts lack of proper legal process or stay defenses | Contempt warranted; clear, unambiguous order violated |
| What sanctions are appropriate for contempt | Costs, attorney fees, daily monetary sanction, possible incarceration until compliance | No substantive defense offered; no alternate sanctions argued | Sanctions to include costs/fees and ongoing fines; possible incarceration if needed |
| Role of magistrate judge in contempt proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §636(e) | Magistrate may certify facts and issue report; district judge conducts de novo hearing | Respondent challenges procedural authority | Certification to district judge; magistrate to proceed with findings if consented |
Key Cases Cited
- Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 307 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2012) (civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence and defined standards)
- Smith v. Pefanis, 652 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (N.D. Ga. 2009) (contempt standards and magistrate authority considerations)
- Res. Investments, Inc. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 545 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (subpoena-related contempt and court-order compliance principles)
- Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 F.2d 1297 (11th Cir. 1991) (public policy and compliance with court orders considerations)