Carmack v. Park Cities Healthcare LLC et al, No. 3:2016cv03500 - Document 139 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 138 Second MOTION for Order to Show Cause filed by Jovan Aniagu, Charlotte Carmack, Teresa Miller. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 10/4/2022) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Carmack v. Park Cities Healthcare LLC et al Doc. 139 Case 3:16-cv-03500-D Document 139 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2324 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CHARLOTTE CARMACK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. PARK CITIES HEALTHCARE LLC, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3500-D MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The August 24, 2022 second motion of plaintiffs/judgment creditors Charlotte Carmack, Teresa Miller, and Jovan Aniagu (collectively, “Judgment Creditors”) for an order to show cause as to why judgment debtor Sharon D. Westen (“Westen”) should not be held in contempt is denied without prejudice. In their motion, Judgment Creditors seek only criminal contempt relief. See, e.g., 2d Mot. for an Order to Show Cause at ¶ 10 (“The Court should consider only criminal contempt as civil contempt will not aid in rectifying the disobedience of the Court’s Order.”). But Judgment Creditors’ counsel cannot act as prosecutor in a criminal contempt proceeding because the Judgment Creditors are the parties who are the beneficiaries of the April 19, 2022 court order on which the alleged contempt is premised. See Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 790, 809 (1987) (plurality opinion). And Judgment Creditors rely in their motion on a burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., 2d Mot. for an Order to Show Cause at ¶ 8. But to establish criminal contempt for violation of a court order, the prosecutor must demonstrate by proof beyond a reasonable doubt Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:16-cv-03500-D Document 139 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2325 “(1) a reasonably specific order, (2) violation of the order, and (3) the willful intent to violate the order.” In re Hipp, Inc., 5 F.3d 109, 112 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, because Judgment Creditors seek to hold Westen only in criminal contempt, their counsel is not the proper prosecutor, and they are relying on a burden of proof that applies to civil, not criminal, contempt proceedings, the court denies without prejudice their second motion for an order to show cause as to why judgment debtor Westen should not be held in contempt. SO ORDERED. October 4, 2022. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER SENIOR JUDGE -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.
