United States v. Pfeiffer
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-01974
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In United States v. Pfeiffer, Judge Doty granted in part the government’s contempt motion, finding Reese and Jeanne Pfeiffer in contempt and ordering a $35,600 fine.
Reese Pfeiffer and Jeanne Pfeiffer must pay the $35,600 civil contempt fine. The government may seek reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, subject to the court’s determination. The order also affects enforcement of the consent decree; the opinion does not find the other named defendants in contempt.
What happened
In United States v. Pfeiffer, the government asked the court to find defendants in civil contempt and impose fines for violating a 2021 consent decree. The court found that Reese Pfeiffer and Jeanne Pfeiffer bought residential rental properties without notifying the government and failed to use an independent management firm as required.
The court rejected their argument that they did not know about the consent decree’s requirements and found that fines were appropriate, including because of earlier violations. It ordered Reese and Jeanne Pfeiffer to pay the government $35,600 within 30 days after receiving payment instructions. The court declined to impose a $1,000 fine automatically for each future violation.
Judge David S. Doty granted the motion for contempt and fines in part. The government may seek reimbursement for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, subject to the court’s determination, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree and contempt order.
The detailed version
- United States v. Pfeiffer · No. 0:20-cv-01974
- David Doty
- May 2, 2024
Background
The government moved for civil contempt and contempt fines. The dispute concerned a consent decree that the court approved on October 25, 2021. The opinion states that the decree required, among other things, notification to the government before purchasing residential rental properties and supervision and management of those properties by an independent management firm.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that civil contempt requires the party seeking contempt to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnors violated a court order. The burden then shifts to the defendants to show that they could not comply.
The court found that Reese Pfeiffer and Jeanne Pfeiffer violated paragraphs 12 and 16 of the consent decree by purchasing residential rental properties without notifying the government and by failing to have an independent management firm oversee and manage those properties. The court rejected their argument that they were unaware of the relevant provisions. It stated that they had entered into the consent decree and could have consulted their counsel, the government, or the decree itself. The court also noted that they did not assert that they were unable to comply and that they had previously violated the decree.
Ruling
The court held that fines were appropriate and necessary and agreed that the fine should total $35,600. It declined the government’s request to make future violations subject to an automatic $1,000 fine per incident, stating that it would address any suspected future violations on their merits.
The court ordered that the motion for contempt and the imposition of fines was granted in part. Reese Pfeiffer and Jeanne Pfeiffer were found in civil contempt and ordered to pay the government a $35,600 civil contempt fine within 30 days of receiving payment instructions from the government. The government may, at its discretion, seek reimbursement for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the consent decree, as determined by the court. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree and the contempt order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.