Revenge Pornographer Hunter Moore Held in Contempt by Federal Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. SACV 12-01866 JVS (ANx) Date January 8, 2013

Title Brandi Passante v. Hunter Moore, et al.

Present: TheHonorable

James V. Selna

Karla J. Tunis Sharon Seffens

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Linda McAleer No Appearance

Proceedings: Hearing re Order to Show Cause re: Civil Contempt

Cause called and counsel for plaintiff makes her appearance. TheCourt notes there is no appearance on behalf of defendant in this matter andnothing has been filed in response to the Order to Show Cause. The Court’stentative ruling is issued. The Court and counsel confer. The Court finds thedefendant in Civil Contempt and rules in accordance with the tentative ruling asfollows:

On December 14, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re: CivilContempt directing defendant Hunter Moore (“Moore”) to show why he should not beheld in contempt for violating the Preliminary Injunction, entered filed November 20,2012. (Docket No. 17.) Among other things, the Preliminary Injunction required Mooreto remove his internet postings of images of plaintiff Brandi Passante (“Passante”). Moore has not responded to the Order to Show Cause.

I. Legal Standard.

The Ninth Circuit has summarized this Circuit’s law of contempt in In reDual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litigation, 10 F.3d 693, 95 (9th Cir. 1993):

Civil contempt in this context consists of a party’s disobedience to a specificand definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within theparty’s power to comply. The contempt need not be willful, and there is nogood faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order. But aperson should not be held in contempt if his action appears to be based on a

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 3

Case 8:12-cv-01866-JVS-AN Document 25 Filed 01/08/13 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:217





good faith and reasonable interpretation of the [court’s order]. Substantialcompliance with the court order is a defense to civil contempt, and is notvitiated by a few technical violations where every reasonable effort has beenmade to comply.

(Internal citations and quotation marks deleted; emphasis supplied.) Having initiated thisproceeding, Passante bears the burden of proving contempt by clear and convincingevidence. Id.; KSM Fastening Systems, Inc. v. H.A. Jones Co., Inc., 776 F.2d 1522, 1524(Fed. Cir. 1985).

II. Findings and Conclusions.

The Court makes the following factual findings:

1. Moore received actual notice of the entry of the Preliminary Injunction. (Docket No. 20.)

2. Moore received actual notice of the Court’s Order to Show Cause recontempt. (Docket No. 24.)

3. Moore had the actual ability to comply with the Preliminary Injunction. Having posted the images of Passante on his internet sites, he has the ability to removethem.

4. Moore has failed to comply with the Preliminary injunction. (Docket No.18, Exs. A, B.)

5. Moore’s failure to comply with the Preliminary Injunction is wilful.

The Court adopts the following conclusions of law:

1. Each of the Court’s factual findings is supported by clear and convincingevidence.

2. Moore is in wilful contempt of the Preliminary Injunction.







3. Passante is entitled to her fees and expenses in bringing the applicationfor contempt. Perry v. O’Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 704 (9th Cir. 1985).

III. Relief.

The Court grants the following relief:

1. After the date Moore receives notice of this Order, if he has failed topurge his contempt by complying with the Preliminary Injunction:

• He shall pay a fine of $50 per day for each day in non-compliance for thefirst seven days;

• He shall pay a fine of $100 per day for each day in non-compliance afterthe first seven days.

These sanctions are imposed solely for the purpose of compelling Moore’s compliancewith the Preliminary Injunction.

2. If Moore has not purged his contempt within 14 days of receipt of noticeof this Order, a bench warrant shall issue for his arrest, and he shall be transported to theCentral District of California, Southern Division.

3. Passante shall file with the Court evidence of the date that Moore actually received notice of this Order.

4. Passante may apply to the Court for attorney’s fees and expenses inpursuing her successful application for contempt. The application shall be in sufficientdetail for the Court to make the usual lodestar analysis. See Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998).

: 03

Initials of Preparer kjt



Documents

Revenge Pornographer Hunter Moore Held in Contempt by Federal Judge