Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 22, 2023

Efthymiou v. Labonte

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:22-cv-04694
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFamily
In one sentence

In Efthymiou v. Labonte, Judge Chhabria required evidence and scheduled a contempt hearing on Efthymiou’s second motion to compel.

Who this affects

Costas Efthymiou and Heather Labonte were required to submit evidence and prepare to testify. Labonte could face a daily fine and possible consideration of jail if the court later found her in contempt and she failed to transfer custody of N.E. to Efthymiou.

What happened

In Efthymiou v. Labonte, Costas Efthymiou claimed that Heather Labonte had violated the court’s orders. The court said the motion suggested a violation if its factual claims were accurate, but noted that the motion itself was not evidence and that several claims lacked supporting evidence.

The court allowed Efthymiou to file supplemental evidence by February 24, 2023, and ordered Labonte to respond with supporting evidence by February 27, 2023. It scheduled an in-person contempt hearing for March 2, 2023, and directed both parties to be prepared to testify under oath.

Judge Vince Chhabria warned that, if the court found Labonte in contempt, she would likely be fined $1,000 for each day she failed to transfer custody of N.E. to Efthymiou, and that the court might consider jailing her if a fine did not work. The opinion did not make a contempt finding.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Efthymiou v. Labonte · No. 3:22-cv-04694
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Feb. 22, 2023

Background

Costas Efthymiou filed a second motion to compel against Heather Labonte. The opinion states that the motion, if accurate, strongly suggested that Labonte had violated court orders. But the court emphasized that a motion is not evidence and that several factual assertions were unsupported by evidence such as an affidavit.

Legal standard

For civil contempt, a party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor violated a specific and definite court order. The burden then shifts to the alleged contemnor to show a present inability to comply with the order.

Court’s action

The court did not make a contempt finding in this order. Instead, it allowed Efthymiou to submit a supplemental filing with the necessary evidence by Friday, February 24, 2023. It ordered Labonte to file a written response and any supporting evidence by Monday, February 27, 2023.

The court scheduled an in-person contempt hearing for Thursday, March 2, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., and directed both Efthymiou and Labonte to be prepared to testify under oath. The court stated that, if it found Labonte in contempt, she would likely be fined $1,000 for each day she failed to transfer custody of N.E. to Efthymiou. It also stated that, if a fine did not work, it would have to consider jailing her.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.