Acadian Cypress and Hardwoods, Inc. VS Joy Stewart
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGI FOR PEI lTED LICATION STATE OF LOUISIAC li1 tT C013 OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 2002 ACADIAN CYPRESS HARDWOODS INC VERSUS JOY STEWART Judgment Rendered EP n 3 2013 On Appeal from the Twenty Judicial District Court First In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa State of Louisiana 0001413 201Z No Honorable Elizabeth P Wolfe Judge Presiding Patricic K Reso Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Gler R Galbraith Acadian Frank J Divittorio Inc Cypress Hardwoods Hammond Louisiana G Andrew Veazey Counsel for Defendant Appellant Bradford hl Felder Joy Stewart Stefini W Salles Lafayette Louisiana BEFORE WHIPPLE C McCLENDON AND HIGGINBOTHAM J7 J Q l l t 3 l KJ i L y 2 C 13 L4 McCLENDON J The defendant appeals from a trial cour judgment granting plaintiff s motion for contempt For the following reasons we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Acadian Cypress Hardwoods Inc Acadian is a supplier of domestic and imported hardwood lumber and plywood hardware and specialty items as well as a manufacturer of hardwood moldings Joy Stewart was employed by Acadian from September May 2004 through April 2012 2009 Acadian Agreement Agreement to presented Ms a as a sales representative In solicitation competition Non Stewart which she signed Ms Stewart continued employment with Acadian until April 27 2012 after which she began employment with Deano Hardwoods LLC Deano a competitor of Acadian Thereafter Acadian filed a petition for injunctive relief and damages against Ms Stewart to enforce the Agreement Following a hearing the trial court signed a judgment on June 1 2012 granting the preliminary injunction The preliminary injunction provides in relevant part IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a preliminary injunction issue herein effective until the further Order of this Court but in no event for a period to exceed two years from April 27 2012 and enjoining defendant Joy Stewart from soliciting current or former customers or suppliers of Acadian Cypress Hardwoods Inc and from carrying on or engaging in a business directly or indirectly as an employee independent contractor owner principal or otherwise that competes with Acadian Cypress Hardwoods Inc specifically including but not limited to Deano Hardwoods LLC where such business provides any of the following products and services domestic and imported hardwood sales domestic and imported plywood sales milling services cypress propriety products cabinets and millwork accessories drying services and distribution of those products Said restrictions shall only apply within the following parishes and counties Louisiana St Tammany Parish Livingston Parish Tangipahoa Parish St Helena Parish Iberville Parish East Baton Rouge Parish West Baton Rouge Parish Ascension Parish East Feliciana Parish West Feliciana Parish Orleans Parish Jefferson Ms Stewart appealed the judgment granting the preliminary injunction which was affirmed by this Court 13 22 3 See Acadian 3d So Cypress Hardwoods Inc v Stewart 12 La 1 Cir 1425 App Ms Stewart alleged that the Agreement betrveen the parties was null and void and therefore the injunction was invalid She did not allege lack of conformity behveen the Agreement and the preliminary injunction that was issued We note that the preliminary injunction is clearly broader than the terms of the Agreement as it contained a non competition provision in addition to the non clause solicitation 2 Parish Jefferson Davis Parish St Cnar Parish St John the es Baptist Parish St Bernard Parish Evangeline Parish St Landry Parish Lafayette Parish Iberia Parish w Parish Cameron ashington Parish Vermilion Parish and Acadia Parish Mississippi Pearl River County Hancock County Harrison County Hinds County Forrest County Pike County Stone County and Jackson County Alabama Mobile County and Baldwin County On July 18 2012 Acadian filed a motion for contempt alleging that Ms Stewart has willfully and intentionally ignored and disregarded the lawful order of this Court Acadian asked that Ms Stewart be held in contempt and sanctioned for her failure to comply with the preliminary injunction After a hearing the trial court signed a judgment on August 13 2012 granting the motion for contempt and finding Ms Stewart to be in contempt of court in that she has intentionally and willfully violated the preliminary injunction The trial court ordered Ms Stewart to pay all court costs regarding the motion It is from this judgment that Ms Stewart now appeals DISCUSSION In her appeal Ms Stewart maintains that the trial court erred in granting s Acadian motion for contempt She asserts that she did not violate the trial s court une 1 2012 judgment granting the preliminary injunction by continuing her employment with Deano and by conducting business outside the confines of the restricted parishes encompassed by the Agreement or by conducting business in her home office located in Tangipahoa Parish Louisiana Authority to punish for contempt of court falls within the inherent power of the court to aid in the exercise of its jurisdiction and to enforce its lawful orders Rogers v Dickens 06 La 1 Cir 2 959 So 940 0898 App 07 9 2d 945 Contempt of court is defined in LSA art 221 as any act or omission P C tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority There are two types of contempt A direct contempt is one committed in the immediate view and presence of the court and of which it has personal knowledge LSA art P C 3 222 A constructive contempt ai court is efir in LSA art 224 as ea C P 2 any contempt other than a direct one including v disobedience of any lawful illful judgment order mandate writ or process of the court Charter School of Pine Grove Inc v St Helena Parish School Bd 07 La 1 Cir 2238 App 09 19 3d 2 9 So 209 224 Proceedings for contempt must be strictly construed and the policy of our law does not favor extending their scope Estate of Graham v Levy 93 0636 App La 1 Cir 4 636 So 287 290 writ denied 94 La 7 94 8 2d 1202 94 1 639 So 1167 The trial court is vested with great discretion in determining 2d whether a party should be held in contempt for disobeying a court order and the s court decision should be reversed only when the appellate court discerns an abuse of that discretion Mason v Hadnot 08 La 1 Cir 2 2015 App 09 13 6 So 256 258 3d The parties initially argue whether this contempt proceeding was civil or criminal in nature If a contempt proceeding is incidental to a civil action it is a civil matter if its purpose is to force compliance with a court order or the punishment imposed is remedial or coercive Rogers 959 So at 947 Estate 2d of Graham 636 So at 290 The burden of proof in a civil contempt case is 2d by a preponderance of the evidence Carvajal v George 07 La 1 2366 App Cir 5 unpublished opinion McKee v McKee 03 La 3 Cir 08 2 254 App 03 1 10 856 2d So 135 137 However if the purpose of the contempt proceeding is to punish disobedience of a court order or the punishment imposed is punitive and intended to vindicate the auth of the court it is a criminal rity matter and the elements of contempt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt Rogers 959 So at 947 2d In this matter the trial court judgment finding Ms Stewart in contempt s of court ordered that she pay the court costs in connection with the motion for contempt but did not attach any conditions or seek any specific compliance on the part of Ms Stewart in order to purge herself of the contempt Because this is an unconditional penalty one that Ms Stewart cannot affect or end it is 4 criminal in nature See Rogers 959 So ai 4 Accordingly we find that Ms 2d Stewart was adjudicated guilty of constructive criminal contempt and therefore the elements of contempt had to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt In her appeal Ms Stewart argues that she did not violate the terms of the preliminary injunction At the hearing she testified that she was currently working for Deano which is located in Lafayette Parish one of the restricted parishes She also stated that her home office was in Tangipahoa Parish another restricted parish When asked what she did to make sure she was in compliance with the injunction Ms Stewart testified We stayed within the unrestricted parishes Basically as far as soliciting and calling on customers I abided by the parishes Yhat are not on the compete non Now we did turn me into more of an outside sales person so therefore when I get calls they will be in the parishes that are unrestricted So yes I still get calls from my home office but I am on the road more frequent therefore in unrestricted parishes Ms Stewart continued and stated that she transferred calls that would go into the home office to her cell phone She stated that her understanding was that I am not supposed to solicit business or customers in those restricted parishes And so that why when the injuncti s ntook place we stayed within the areas that are not restricted During cross Ms Stewart was asked whether she had been examination contacted by Acadian customers within the restricted parishes since she had been working for Deano and she responded affirmatively Then she was asked what she told those customers when she was contacted and Ms Stewart responded Basically that I could not help them because they were in because I in the middle of a nan and they were in the m compete restricted areas Ms Stewart was asked what was her understanding of the terms of the preliminary injunction and she stated Basically the way I interpret is it says do not solicit contact customers I think it may even say vendors in restricted parishes So basically what we did was we looked at the parishes that were 5 not on there and that is who I call on t the c that I go r uvtomers see Qn redirect examination the following exchang t place ok Q When you ot calls from these customers that you turned away did you send them onto another sales person at Deano A I told them they could call the outside salesman for that rep or they could call the warehouse Q And you gave them the phone number correct A Actually nobody took me up on it I mean Q So you couldn do it yourself but you were willing to let t someone else from Deano do what you couldn tdo A Redirect thern to someone else Yes In its written reasons for judgment the trial court stated he T Court considered the plaintiff motion for contempt s and heard the testimony of witnesses as well as reviewing the memorandum case law and statutes The Court granted the motion for contempt and found that the defendant intentionally knowingly violated the court order in question The order prohibited her from competing with the plaintiff business in s certain parishes and she was in clear violation of that She lives in Tangipahoa Parish and works from her home office in a business that directly competes with the plaintiff Also she has materials shipped from Lafayette Parish where that business likewise competes with the plaintiff She did attempt to comply with the order by not doing business in the other restricted parishes but she knew 7angipahoa and Lafayette were restricted and yet she did business activities in those lwo parishes which competed with the plaintiff For this contempt the Court ordered the defendant to pay all of the plaintiff costs of court s While we tend to agree with Ms Stewart that the trial s court interpretation of the injunction may be overly broad because such interpretation could effectively prevent her from engaging in her business anywhere in the United States we nevertheless find no abuse of discretion in the trial court finding of contempt Ms Stewart admitted in her testimony that she s referred customers of Acadian to Deano Clearly this conduct was willful and intentional and constituted a violation of the non provisions of the solicitation 2 We are specifically troubled by any interpretation that placing sales telephone calls from a home office to a potential customer outside the restricted area would equate to doing business in an area from which the call was placed In our ever technological world such an expanding interpretation would arguably prevent a cell phone call to a customer outside of the restricted area but made while passing through a restricted area This does not seem to accomplish the purpose or intent of such agreements 6 injunction Therefore or Che record e us we condude that any ore rational trier of fact Could flnd the essential elements of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt an we affirm the tri court judgment ls CONCWSION For the foregoing reasons the August 13 2012 judgment of the trial court is affirmed All costs of this appeal are assessed to Joy Stewart AFFIRMED 3 Having found a violation of the non clause of the preliminary injunction it is not solicitation necessery to address whether Ms Stewart violated the non provision of the competition injunction 7
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.
