Opinion
MEMORANDUM RE TONY FU'S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS
THOMAS E. CARLSON U.S. Bankruptcy Judge.
On July 27, 2011, the court entered an order (the "July 27th Order") requiring Demas Yan and Cheuk Tin Yan ("Defendants") on or before August 17, 2011 to dismiss the following cases: Yan vs. Lei and Fu, San Francisco Sup. Ct., Case No. CGC 08-478364; Yan v. Ma, Li, and Fu, San Francisco Sup. Ct., Case No. CGC-08-478815; and Yan v. Lei and Fu, San Francisco Sup. Ct., Case No. CGC 07-467500 (collectively the "State-Court Actions").
On August 6, 2011, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the July 27th Order. Defendants did not file a motion for a stay pending appeal.
On October 27, 2011, Tony Fu filed a motion for an order re contempt and sanctions against Defendants (the "Motion for Contempt and Sanctions").
On November 18, 2011, Defendants filed opposition to the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions. The court also construes Defendants' opposition as a motion for a stay pending appeal of the July 27th Order (the "Motion for Stay Pending Appeal"). Defendants do not dispute that they did not dismiss the State-Court Actions.
On November 19, 2011, Crystal Lei filed a motion for joinder of the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions.
On December 2, 2011, the court held a hearing on the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions. Bryan L. Hawkins appeared for Crystal Lei. Tony Fu appeared in pro per. Demas Yan appeared in pro per. Upon due consideration, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the court resolves the motions as follows:
(1) The Motion for Stay Pending Appeal should be denied, because Defendants did not immediately seek a stay pending appeal of the July 27th Order, and because Defendants made no showing of a likelihood of success on appeal of the July 27th Order.
(2) Defendants should be held in civil contempt for willful violation of the July 27th Order. The violation of that order is intentional in that Defendants knew of the order and had the ability to comply with that order in that it requires them only to file a dismissal of the State-Court Actions.
(3) The court finds that monetary sanctions are appropriate if Defendants do not take all steps necessary to dismiss the State- Court Actions on or before December 12, 2011, because Defendants willfully violated the July 27th Order, and because Defendants have full power and authority to dismiss the State-Court Actions. If Defendants do not fully and timely dismiss the State-Court Actions, beginning on December 13, 2011 Defendants should be sanctioned $250 per day until the State-Court Actions are dismissed and the court should hold a status conference on January 6, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. to consider the imposition of additional sanctions.