Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:15-cv-02726
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Judge Hixson ordered Robert G. Howie to explain why he should not be held in contempt for unpaid sanctions.
Robert G. Howie, counsel for the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, must respond to the court’s order to show cause. Amanda Jones may file a reply and must serve the order and file proof of service.
What happened
In Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the court had previously ordered Robert G. Howie, counsel for the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, to pay $46,363.29 in monetary sanctions. The opinion says he had not paid that amount.
Amanda Jones asked the court to require Mr. Howie to explain why he should not be held in contempt for violating the sanctions order. The court found that he had violated the order by failing to pay and had not provided an explanation.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered Mr. Howie to respond by February 20, 2025, and allowed Jones to reply by February 27, 2025. The court did not yet rule that Mr. Howie was in contempt; it said it would decide based on the filings or hold a hearing on March 13, 2025.
The detailed version
- Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 3:15-cv-02726
- Thomas Hixson
- Feb. 6, 2025
Background
On September 27, 2024, the court granted in part Amanda Jones’s motion for sanctions and ordered Robert G. Howie, counsel for Defendant Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, to pay $46,363.29. Jones later asked the court to order Mr. Howie to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should not impose contempt consequences—for failing to comply with that order.
The opinion states that Mr. Howie initially appealed the sanctions order, but the Ninth Circuit granted his later motion to dismiss that appeal on November 5, 2024. According to Jones, her counsel then contacted Mr. Howie about payment and advised him that Jones would file a motion if the amount was not paid by January 24, 2025. The opinion says Mr. Howie did not respond further.
Legal standard
The court explained that it has inherent authority to enforce its orders through a civil-contempt proceeding. Civil contempt is remedial when it is intended to coerce compliance with an order or compensate the complaining party. Jones had the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Howie violated a specific and definite court order. The court also explained that the violation need not be willful and that there is no good-faith exception to obeying a court order. After the moving party meets its burden, the person accused of contempt must explain why compliance was impossible and show that he took every reasonable step to comply.
Ruling and next steps
The court found that Jones had shown Mr. Howie violated the sanctions order by failing to pay the ordered sanctions and that he had not provided an explanation for that failure. The court therefore ordered Robert G. Howie to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. It did not state that it was holding him in contempt at this stage.
Mr. Howie was ordered to file a response by February 20, 2025. Jones could file a reply by February 27, 2025. The court said it would either issue an order based on the filings or conduct a hearing on March 13, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Jones was directed to serve the order on Mr. Howie by February 7, 2025, and later file proof of service.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.