Auto Parts Mfg MS Inc. v. King Const of Houston, L, No. 17-60450 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-60450 Document: 00514493703 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-60450 May 31, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk AUTO PARTS MANUFACTURING MISSISSIPPI, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff – Appellee v. KOHN LAW GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant – Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:11-CV-251 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In this case, Kohn Law Group, Inc. (“Kohn Law”) challenges the district court’s determination that it violated an injunction against pursuing actions related to an interpleader fund and the district court’s subsequent decision to impose civil sanctions on that basis. A finding for civil contempt for the violation of an injunction requires the contemnor to have violated “a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from performing a particular act or acts with Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 17-60450 Document: 00514493703 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2018 No. 17-60450 knowledge of the court’s order.” 1 We review a district court’s decision to impose civil contempt on that basis for abuse of discretion. 2 The district court’s finding that the contemnor violated an order must be supported by “clear and convincing evidence,” 3 but we accept particular factual determinations as true unless they are clearly erroneous. 4 The district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Kohn Law. We conclude that Kohn Law violated the district court’s injunction, and that injunction was sufficiently clear under our precedent to sustain the civil sanctions; 5 even if the district court’s injunction did not “expressly prohibit[]” 6 Kohn Law’s conduct, though we think it did, we also reject the assertion that this would work a constitutional harm. 7 Kohn Law’s other arguments against the imposition of civil sanctions are similarly lacking in merit. We affirm the district court’s imposition of civil sanctions. Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford, 68 F.3d 958, 961 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting SEC v. First Fin. Grp. of Tex., Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 669 (5th Cir. 1981)). 2 See Hornbeck Offshore Servs., LLC v. Salazar, 713 F.3d 787, 792 (5th Cir. 2013). 3 Id. 4 See id. 5 See, e.g., Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574, 578 (5th Cir. 2000). 6 Hornbeck, 713 F.3d at 792. 7 See Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122, 143 (2d Cir. 2014) (describing a “salutary rule” deployed in Second Circuit that any ambiguity in orders forming the basis of contempt must “redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt”). 1 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
