Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-cv-00275-JLK.
February 9, 2007
ORDER
On January 17, 2007, on Plaintiffs' motion, I ordered Larry K. Griffis to show cause why he should not be held in civil contempt for violation of the Court's Preliminary Injunction of March 2, 2001, and/or for aiding and abetting his client, Defendant Mark Wolok, in violating the Preliminary Injunction. On February 2, 2007, Mr. Griffis timely responded to this order. Having carefully considered Mr. Griffis' response, Plaintiffs' initial motion and February 6, 2007 reply, all applicable legal authorities, and being fully advised in the premises, I find no basis for holding Mr. Griffis in civil contempt.
The March 2, 2001 Preliminary Injunction, among other things, prohibited the direct or indirect transfer, sale, assignment, dissipation, concealment, encumbrance and payment or other disposition in any manner of funds, assets or other property belonging to or in the possession, custody and control of Mark Wolok. In an Order entered on December 15, 2006, I found Mr. Wolok in civil contempt for violation of the Preliminary Injunction. Based on my review of Plaintiffs' motion and reply and Mr. Griffis' response, I now find Mr. Griffis was neither in active concert or participation with Mr. Wolok in this violation nor aided and abetted Mr. Wolok in it. In so holding, I in no way condone Mr. Griffis's conduct; I merely find it was not sufficient to constitute a direct violation of the Preliminary Injunction or aiding and abetting Mr. Wolok's violation of the Preliminary Injunction. As a result, I find no basis for holding Mr. Griffis in civil contempt for the conduct complained of by Plaintiffs.
I have also considered, but am not persuaded by, Mr. Griffis' arguments that there was no underlying violation by Mr. Wolok.
The Order to Show Cause to Mr. Griffis is, therefore, discharged.