Opinion
CIV-23-1147-SLP
08-22-2024
JASON CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAMES STOCKTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter came before the Court on August 21, 2024 for a hearing directing Attorney James A. Conrady to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. As reflected in the record [Doc. Nos. 60, 61 and 62], Mr. Conrady failed to comply with the Court's Order [Doc. No. 57] directing payment of sanctions. In the Court's Order setting the hearing [Doc. No. 63], Mr. Conrady was advised that a failure to appear may result in the imposition of additional sanctions.
Mr. Conrady failed to appear at the hearing. And at the hearing, counsel for the parties represented that to date, Mr. Conrady has made no payment of sanctions.
The Court finds Mr. Conrady is in contempt both for failing to appear at the hearing and for failing to pay the sanctions as previously ordered. “A district court has broad discretion in using its contempt power to require adherence to court orders.” Farmer v. Banco Popular of North Am., 557 Fed.Appx. 762, 769 (10th Cir. 2014). The Court finds the appropriate sanction for the contempt is to reduce the sanctions award, see Doc. No. 57, to judgment. See, e.g., Moore v. Harris, 600 Fed.Appx. 201, 205 (5th Cir. 2015) (affirming district order converting sanctions into a judgment). Additionally, rather than impose additional financial sanctions, the professional misconduct at issue will be referred to the Chief Judge of this judicial district in accordance with LCvR 83.6(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED