Baum, Matter of, 77-3042
| Decision Date | 15 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-3042,77-3042 |
| Citation | 606 F.2d 592 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Noel Berthold BAUM, Bankrupt. Franz Joseph BADDOCK, Appellant, v. Joe VILLARD and Jack P. Brook, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Franz Joseph Baddock, pro se.
D. Donn Moss, Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Franz Joseph Baddock, an attorney for a debtor in a bankruptcy action in these proceedings, appeals from a district court order affirming a finding of contempt against him made by the bankruptcy judge. We disagree with the finding of contempt and reverse.
On August 3, 1976, attorney Baddock mailed a notice to the attorneys for all six defendants in the bankruptcy proceedings for the taking of a deposition of Howard E. Samuel, an officer of the Louisiana Bank of Baton Rouge, which was scheduled for August 6. On August 4, counsel for two of the defendants, Villard and Brook, moved the bankruptcy court to have the notice set aside on the ground that the time given was insufficient. The motion was not joined in by the other four defendants. The bankruptcy judge granted the motion and ordered that "the notice of deposition mailed on August 3, 1976 noticing the deposition of Howard E. Samuel be vacated and set aside, same not being reasonable notice as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Attorney Baddock conducted the taking of the deposition of Mr. Samuel despite the order setting aside the notice. Counsel for Villard and Brook then moved for a show cause order why appellant Baddock should not be held in contempt of court for taking the deposition. After an evidentiary hearing on the motion, the bankruptcy judge found Baddock in contempt of court and fined him $250. See Bankruptcy Rule 920 pertaining to contempt proceedings. Baddock's appeal to the district court was unsuccessful as the district court upheld the finding of contempt.
Contempt is committed when a person "violates an order of a court requiring in specific and definite language that a person do or refrain from doing an act." Baumrin v. Cournoyer, D.Mass., 1978, 448 F.Supp. 225, 227. See Lichenstein v. Lichenstein, 3 Cir., 1970, 425 F.2d 1111, 1113. The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon which should not be used if the court's order upon which the contempt was founded is vague or ambiguous. International Longshoreman's Association v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Association, 389 U.S. 64, 76, 88 S.Ct. 201, 208, 19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967). See Ford v. Kammerer, 3 Cir., 1971, 450 F.2d 279. Thus, the court's order "must set forth in specific detail an unequivocal command." H. K. Porter Co., Inc. v. National Friction Products Corp., 7 Cir., 1977, 568 F.2d 24, 27.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Reed
...participated in the siege on debtors' home. They were not, however, included in the order to show cause. See generally, In re Baum, 606 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir. 1979); McClintock, Handbook of the Principles of Equity, 37 (1948) ("Any person who knowingly aids or abets the violation of an ord......
-
Lelsz v. Kavanagh
...is founded is vague or ambiguous. Thus, the court's order `must set forth in specific detail an unequivocal command.' Matter of Baum, 606 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir.1979) (citations omitted). Contempt represents more than a delay in performance or lack of perfection. It is, instead, the failure......
-
In re Sims
...of the fact the order is directed at them." Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp, 947 F.2d at 17 (citing, inter alia, Baddock v. Villard (In re Baum), 606 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir.1979)(reversing finding of contempt because the order in question "was not addressed specifically" to the putative contemno......
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Allen, Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-882-O
...to perform or refrain from performing an act. Martin v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing Baddock v. Villard, 606 F.2d 592, 593 (5th Cir.1979)). "The judicial contempt power is a potent weapon which should not be used if the court's order upon which the contempt ......
-
CHAPTER 11 - 11-2 Oral Depositions—Texas Rule 199
...1987, writ denied) ("When other parties are not given notice of the deposition, an 'ex parte' deposition is not admissible."); In re Baum, 606 F.2d 592, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 1979) ("Depositions taken without proper notice may be found to be inadmissible."). [177] Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a(a)(2).[178......
-
CHAPTER 11 - 11-3 Depositions on Written Questions—Texas Rule 200
...writ denied) ("When other parties are not given notice of the deposition, an 'ex parte' deposition is not admissible."); cf. In re Baum, 606 F.2d 592, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 1979) ("Depositions taken without proper notice may be found to be inadmissible."); Hoffman v. Lassen Cnty., No. 2:15-cv-1......