Chesapeake Bank v. Stuart Berger, No. 15-1667 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1667 CHESAPEAKE BANK, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STUART D. BERGER; DEBORAH D. BERGER, Defendants - Appellants, and BERGER PROPERTIES OF OHIO, LLC; BERGER PROPERTIES OF FLORIDA, LLC; BERGER PROPERTIES OF TEXAS, LLC; BERGER PROPERTIES OF MARYLAND, LLC; S & D UNLIMITED OF TEXAS, LLC; S & D UNLIMITED, LLC; THE UNLIMITED GROUP, INC.; LAW OFFICES OF STUART BERGER, PLLC, Defendants KEITH M. NORTHERN; ROBERT B. SMITH Receiver. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:14-cv-00066-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. November 10, 2015 Stuart D. Berger, Deborah D. Berger, Appellants Pro Se. Augustus Charles Epps, Jr., Harrison Mann Gates, Rowland Braxton Hill, IV, Belinda Duke Jones, Michael David Mueller, CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Stuart Berger and Deborah Berger appeal from the district court’s order imposing contempt fines and its subsequent order denying in part their motion for reconsideration. The Bergers contend that the nature of the contempt was criminal rather than civil. We conclude that the contempt was civil. The imposition of the per diem fine was plainly designed to coerce the Bergers’ compliance with the court’s preliminary injunction, consistent with one of the primary aims of civil contempt. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 82729 (1994). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545 (1949). Because the contempt is civil in nature, jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal. we lack See Consol. Coal Co. v. Local 1702, United Mineworkers of Am., 683 F.2d 827, 830 n.3 (4th Cir. 1982) (“[A] civil contempt proceeding is in effect a continuance of the main action and therefore a party to a suit may not review upon appeal an order fining or imprisoning him for civil contempt except in connection with appeal from a final judgment of the main claim.”). the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 3 Accordingly, we dismiss We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
