United States Ninth Circuit

The district court properly ruled on the bankruptcy court's post-judgment imposition of contempt sanctions on defendants for failing to transfer a Mexican coastal villa to the plaintiff in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding, where: 1) the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction, post-judgment, to substitute a property transferee because it retained jurisdiction to supervise the course of conduct mandated by the judgment; 2) even though the bankruptcy court's contempt and sanctions orders were based solely on affidavits, they did not violate due process; 3) the judgment was sufficiently specific to support a finding of civil contempt; 4) the bankruptcy court's findings of contempt for a particular period were not clearly erroneous; 5) the bankruptcy court did not err in issuing an order abrogating a defendant's attorney-client privilege; and 6) the district court did not err in vacating compulsory sanctions of $25,000 per day for a period before the defendants were put on notice that their continued occupation of the villa would trigger such sanctions.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/26/2014
• Published 06/26/2014

Judges

• FARRIS

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel