Browne, IPI found in contempt

The U.S District Court for the NMI found both Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC and its chief executive officer, Donald Browne, in contempt yesterday for noncompliance with court orders.

According to an order from U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona Manglona, the court found IPI in contempt of court for its willful delay in complying with the court’s orders despite having been ordered as early as Sept. 24 to make interim payments when money is available.

Given Browne’s role in directing payments elsewhere on behalf of IPI, despite having full knowledge of the court’s sanctions order—as he stated in his declaration asking for a court-appointed counsel—the court also found Browne in contempt of court.

Fortunately, because IPI finally complied with the court’s sanctions of over $93,000 back in Dec. 4, the court does not need to incarcerate Browne as a coercive sanction, Manglona said.

She noted that coercive civil contempt sanctions are intended to coerce compliance with the court’s orders in the future.

Because Browne no longer faces possible incarceration, Manglona has also denied his request for a court-appointed counsel.

Manglona found IPI and Browne in contempt because the plaintiffs, through Aaron Halegua and Bruce Berline, “demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence” that both IPI and Browne violated the court’s order, and both IPI and Browne concede that they failed to timely comply with the courts order by failing to tender the full sanctions amount, or even any partial payment, to plaintiffs by Oct. 24.

Due to this contempt of court order, plaintiffs are entitled to a compensatory civil contempt award for the actual loss that they suffered, including attorneys’ fees, in litigating the order to show cause to secure IPI’s compliance.

On Aug. 25, the court ordered IPI to pay the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees in the amount of $93,834.25 by Sept. 24 as a sanction due to IPI’s repeated failures to abide by the court’s discovery orders.

At IPI’s request, the court granted it a 30-day extension, ordering that the full amount be paid no later than Oct. 24, and that IPI make interim payments as soon as funds are available. Yet on Oct. 27, plaintiffs filed a notice of noncompliance, informing the court that plaintiffs have not received any payment from IPI for the fee award.

On Nov. 17, plaintiffs moved the court for an order to show cause against IPI.

The court issued its order to show cause on Dec. 2, ordering IPI to explain why the court should not, to name a few, find IPI in contempt, find Browne in contempt, fine and incarcerate Browne, and award the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees.

The court set the matter for a hearing on Dec. 10 but two days later, Dec. 4, IPI filed its response to the court’s order to show cause, indicating that it paid the sanctions that very day. IPI’s counsel, Michael Dotts, filed a declaration certifying that IPI paid $93,834.25 through a check to the plaintiff’s local counsel.

In response, plaintiffs argued that IPI and Browne should still be found in contempt for violating the court’s order.