United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
DIRECTORS OF THE OHIO CONFERENCE OF PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS COMBINED FUNDS, INC., Plaintiffs,
S & S PLASTERING LLC, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Stephanie K. Bowman, United States Magistrate Judge.
default judgment previously was entered in this case against
Defendant S&S Plastering LLC. (Doc. 14). This matter is
now before the undersigned regarding the Defendant's
failure to show cause why it should not be held in contempt
of court. For the following reasons, the undersigned
RECOMMENDS THAT Steven R. Doyle be directed to appear before
the presiding district judge IN PERSON on a date certain to
show cause for his and the Defendant's failure to comply
with the July 9, 2019 Order of the undersigned magistrate
judge. If Mr. Doyle fails to appear, the presiding district
judge should hold Defendant in civil contempt.
finding of civil contempt is appropriate when a party
disobeys a lawful court order. Glover v. Johnson,
138 F.3d 228, 245 (6th Cir. 1998). “Contempt
proceedings enforce the message that court orders and
judgments are to be complied with in a prompt manner.”
IBEW v. Gary's Elec. Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373,
378 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze,
Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 588 (6th Cir. 1987)). Before a court
will hold a litigant in contempt, a moving party must show
“by clear and convincing evidence that the party to be
held in contempt violated a court order.” U.S. v.
Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1042 (6th Cir. 2007). Although no
formal motion for civil contempt has been filed by
Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs previously filed an analogous motion
by seeking a show cause order, directing Defendant to show
cause as to why it should not be held in contempt. The
undersigned granted Plaintiffs' “show cause”
motion on July 9, 2019. (Doc. 19). However, neither Mr.
Doyle, as the Defendant's registered agent, nor any other
person on behalf of the Defendant has filed any timely
response to show cause order.
636(e) of the United States Magistrate Judges Act governs the
authority of the undersigned in contempt proceedings. In
civil cases like the one presented here, where the parties
have not consented to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c), the imposition of civil contempt requires
certification of facts by the undersigned to the presiding
district judge. Specifically, the statute provides, in
relevant part, as follows:
(6) Certification of other contempts to the district
court. -- Upon the commission of any such act-
* * *
(B) in any other case or proceeding under
subsection (a) or (b) of this section, or any other statute,
* * *
(iii) the act constitutes a civil contempt,
the magistrate judge shall forthwith certify the facts to a
district judge and may serve or cause to be served, upon any
person whose behavior is brought into question under this
paragraph, an order requiring such person to appear before a
district judge upon a day certain to show cause why that
person should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the
facts so certified. The district judge shall thereupon hear
the evidence as to the act or conduct complained of and, if
it is such as to warrant punishment, punish such person in
the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt
committed before a district judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636 (e)(6)(B)(iii).
Mr. Doyle's lack of any timely response to the July 9,
2019 show cause order, the undersigned certifies the
following facts to the presiding district judge and
recommends requiring Mr. Doyle to appear upon a ...