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 discharged a contempt show-cause order but required Robert G. Howie to pay $46,363.29 after judgment.
Robert G. Howie is not held in contempt under this order, but must pay Amanda Jones and her counsel $46,363.29 within 60 days after judgment is entered in the case. The show-cause order is discharged.
What happened
In Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the court had previously ordered Robert G. Howie, a former lawyer for Defendant Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, to pay Amanda Jones and her lawyer $46,363.29 in sanctions. Jones later asked the court to require Howie to explain why he should not be held in contempt for not paying.
Howie responded that the sanctions order did not set a payment deadline and that he planned to appeal it after the case ended. The court explained that civil contempt requires disobedience of a specific and definite court order, and that the order did not require payment by a particular date.
Judge Hixson discharged the show-cause order because Jones could not show that Howie was overdue under the existing order. The court nevertheless ordered Howie to pay the $46,363.29 sanctions award within 60 days after judgment is entered in the case.
The detailed version
- Jones v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation · No. 3:15-cv-02726
- Thomas Hixson
- Mar. 14, 2025
Background
On September 27, 2024, the court granted in part Amanda Jones’s motion for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. It ordered Robert G. Howie, former counsel for Defendant Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, to pay Jones and her counsel $46,363.29. On February 5, 2025, Jones asked the court to order Howie to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply. The court issued that show-cause order on February 6, 2025.
Howie’s Response
Howie stated that he believed he had not violated the sanctions order because it did not specify a payment deadline. He also stated that he intended to appeal the order at the conclusion of the case. The opinion notes that Howie had initially filed an appeal but that the Ninth Circuit later granted his motion to dismiss that appeal. Howie said he dismissed the appeal based on his understanding that sanctions orders might not be immediately appealable, while intending to renew his appeal at the end of the proceedings.
Contempt Standard
The court explained that civil contempt involves disobeying a specific and definite court order by failing to take all reasonable steps within the person’s power to comply. The party alleging contempt must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person violated the order, that the noncompliance was more than technical or minimal, and that the conduct was not based on a good-faith or reasonable interpretation of the order. The burden then shifts to the person accused of contempt to explain why compliance was not possible.
Ruling
The court found that Howie had not disobeyed a specific and definite court order. Although the court had awarded sanctions against him, the September 2024 order did not set a date by which he had to pay. Accordingly, the court DISCHARGES the show-cause order.
The court also decided to set a payment deadline. It ordered Howie to pay the $46,363.29 sanctions award within 60 days of entry of judgment in the case. The order did not otherwise alter the earlier sanctions award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.