Hughes v. Sharp, 71-2792.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 476 F.2d 975 |
| Parties | Lloyd I. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. William SHARP, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2792.,71-2792. |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1973 |
476 F.2d 975 (1973)
Lloyd I. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
J. William SHARP, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-2792.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 11, 1973.
Stanley N. Gleis, Robert Ferguson, Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Max L. Gillam, Philip F. Belleville, Joseph A. Wheelock, Jr., Fredric J. Zepp, Latham & Watkins, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, HUFSTEDLER and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
J. William Sharp appeals from an order of the district court holding him in civil contempt for failure to appear at an examination of judgment debtor in proceedings ancillary to execution of judgment. Sharp was fined the amount of his opponent's attorney's fees and costs and ordered confined until he had purged himself of the contempt.
Sharp does not contend at this time that he is not the judgment debtor of Hughes. He does contend that he was not properly brought before the court, and that therefore the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. He also attacks the district court's subject matter jurisdiction. We express no view on these arguments.
Since Sharp is a party to the pending proceedings, and since those proceedings are still under way, we lack jurisdiction to consider the purported appeal from the district court's contempt order. That order is interlocutory. See Fox v. Capitol Co., 299 U.S. 105, 57 S.Ct. 57, 81 L.Ed. 67 (1936); Western P. R.R. Corp. v. Western P.R.R. Co., 216 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1954); and Hodgson v. Mahoney, 460 F.2d 326 (1st Cir. 1972).
Although this result seems harsh, Hughes was not left without recourse. He can always purge himself of the contempt. Or, he might have moved to quash the process that he now seeks to challenge; and if that motion had been denied, such denial would generally be appealable. Edwin Raphael Co. v. Maharam Fabrics Corp., 283 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1960). Finally, he could have sought leave to bring an interlocutory appeal from the contempt order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Notice of appeal was filed on August 4, 1971. The brief for Hughes was filed on April 7, 1972. In that brief
The appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 91-16927
...not considered final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 648 F.2d 642, 651 (9th Cir.1981); Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975 (9th Cir.1973). Where the contempt order is a post-judgment order imposing sanctions, however, the order may be final for the purposes of §......
-
International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 1133 to 1136
...v. Teamsters Local 294, 424 F.2d 124 (1970); Dickinson v. Rinke, 132 F.2d 884 (1943), as well as in other circuits. See Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975 (9th Cir.1973); Hodgson v. Mahoney, 460 F.2d 326, 327 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1039, 93 S.Ct. 519, 34 L.Ed.2d 488 (1972); SEC v. Na......
-
Rosenfeldt v. Comprehensive Accounting Service Corp., 73-1957
...Corp. v. United States, 493 F.2d 112, 117 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 995, 94 S.Ct. 2409, 40 L.Ed.2d 774; Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1973); S. E. C. v. Naftalin, 460 F.2d 471, 475 (8th Cir. 1972); Hodgson v. Mahoney, 460 F.2d 326, 328 (1st Cir. 1972); Fireman's Fund ......
-
Hoffman for and on Behalf of N.L.R.B. v. Beer Drivers and Salesmen's Local Union No. 888, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, s. 74-1449
...be purged. As such, it was an adjudication of civil contempt, interlocutory in character, from which no appeal lies. Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1973); New York Telephone Co. v. Communications Workers of America, 445 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. THE ORDER OF DECEMBER 4, 1973 On November 20,......
-
Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 91-16927
...not considered final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 648 F.2d 642, 651 (9th Cir.1981); Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975 (9th Cir.1973). Where the contempt order is a post-judgment order imposing sanctions, however, the order may be final for the purposes of §......
-
International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 1133 to 1136
...v. Teamsters Local 294, 424 F.2d 124 (1970); Dickinson v. Rinke, 132 F.2d 884 (1943), as well as in other circuits. See Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975 (9th Cir.1973); Hodgson v. Mahoney, 460 F.2d 326, 327 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1039, 93 S.Ct. 519, 34 L.Ed.2d 488 (1972); SEC v. Na......
-
Rosenfeldt v. Comprehensive Accounting Service Corp., 73-1957
...Corp. v. United States, 493 F.2d 112, 117 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 995, 94 S.Ct. 2409, 40 L.Ed.2d 774; Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1973); S. E. C. v. Naftalin, 460 F.2d 471, 475 (8th Cir. 1972); Hodgson v. Mahoney, 460 F.2d 326, 328 (1st Cir. 1972); Fireman's Fund ......
-
Hoffman for and on Behalf of N.L.R.B. v. Beer Drivers and Salesmen's Local Union No. 888, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, s. 74-1449
...be purged. As such, it was an adjudication of civil contempt, interlocutory in character, from which no appeal lies. Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1973); New York Telephone Co. v. Communications Workers of America, 445 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. THE ORDER OF DECEMBER 4, 1973 On November 20,......