Opinion
Case No. 20-20824-CIV-O'SULLIVAN
05-29-2020
[CONSENT] ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Expedited Motion for Contempt, Sanctions, and to Modify Preliminary Injunction (DE# 134, 5/14/20). On May 29, 2020, the Court held a show cause hearing. The plaintiff presented the testimony of Dustin Wolff, Mark White and Peter Godwin.
The Court's power to find the defendants in contempt for disobeying the Court's orders stems from the Court's inherent power to enforce compliance with its lawful orders. United States v. Barnette, 129 F.3d 1179, 1182, n. 7 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 F.2d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 1991)).
"A finding of civil contempt - willful disregard of the authority of the court - must be supported by clear and convincing evidence." Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th Cir. 2002). Civil contempt is appropriate upon a finding that: "(1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with the order." Id. "Once it has been shown that a violation of the order has occurred, the burden shifts to the contemnor to demonstrate an impossibility of compliance." In re Lawrence, 279 F.3d 1294, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002).
The Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Dustin Wolff violated the Court's Preliminary Injunction (DE# 126, 5/6/20). The plaintiff did not present any evidence of actions taken by the other defendants to violate the Court's Preliminary Injunction (DE# 126, 5/6/20)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing and for the reasons stated on the record, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's Expedited Motion for Contempt, Sanctions, and to Modify Preliminary Injunction (DE# 134, 5/14/20) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of May, 2020.
/s/_________
JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE