S.E.C. v. Elmas Trading Corp., 87-1724

Citation824 F.2d 732
Decision Date29 September 1987
Docket NumberNo. 87-1724,87-1724
PartiesSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; Richard G. Shaffer, Receiver, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. ELMAS TRADING CORPORATION, et al., Defendant, and James L. Attarian, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

John Ohlson, Reno, Nev., for defendant-appellant.

Yolanda Orozco, Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Nevada.

Before FLETCHER, REINHARDT and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant is incarcerated for civil contempt. Orders of civil contempt entered against a party during the course of a pending civil action are not appealable until final judgement. * Union of Professional Airmen v. Alaska Aeronautical Industries, Inc., 625 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir.1980). After limited review to determine whether the contempt is criminal or civil, the court concludes that the district court did not clearly err in finding that appellant is able to comply with its orders of production. "When the petitioners carry 'the keys of their prison in their own pockets,' the action 'is essentially a civil remedy.' " Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 368, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1534, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1965) (citations omitted).

The district court ordered Attarian incarcerated for his failure to obey its order to account for funds and to produce records relating to assets. From the court's order, it is clear that its purpose in incarcerating Attarian is to coerce him to produce the demanded documents that are needed in the litigation and investigation or to provide credible evidence as to his inability to comply. As such, the conditional nature of the order makes it one for civil contempt. Id. at 368-69, 86 S.Ct. at 1535.

Regardless of the purpose of the order, if, as Attarian asserts, he lacks the ability to comply with it, or it has lost all coercive effect, the contempt becomes criminal and we have jurisdiction to review it. Carbon Fuel Co. v. United Mine Workers, 517 F.2d 1348, 1349 (4th Cir.1975). The determination as to whether a civil contempt sanction has lost its coercive effect upon a particular contemnor rests within the sound discretion of the district court. We review the record to ensure that the district judge made an individualized decision that the continued confinement of Attarian would have a coercive effect. Simkin v. United States, 715 F.2d 34, 37 (2d Cir.1983). The district court did not find credible Attarian's assertions that he has done...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 21, 1988
    ...is regarded as interlocutory and to be reviewed only upon appeal from a final decree in the case." See also SEC v. Elmas Trading Corp., 824 F.2d 732, 732 (9th Cir.1987); Duell v. Duell, 178 F.2d 683, 687 (D.C.Cir.1949). Although Eastern correctly notes that "[e]xceptions to the rule are ple......
  • Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 4, 2016
    ...appeal is whether contemnor has the present ability to comply, not whether it could have complied in the past); SEC v. Elmas Trading Corp., 824 F.2d 732, 732–33 (9th Cir.1987)(noting that civil contempt may become criminal over time). This is because, in order to categorize the contempt pro......
  • Oliner v. Kontrabecki
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 10, 2004
    ...contempt adjudication and impossibility defenses are reviewed for clear error. See id. at 1239, 1241; see also S.E.C. v. Elmas Trading Corp., 824 F.2d 732, 732 (9th Cir.1987) (finding that district court did not clearly err in finding that appellant is able to comply with its orders of prod......
  • Oliner v. Kontrabecki
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of California
    • February 10, 2004
    ...contempt adjudication and impossibility defenses are reviewed for clear error. See id. at 1239, 1241; see also S.E.C. v. Elmas Trading Corp., 824 F.2d 732, 732 (9th Cir.1987) (finding that district court did not clearly err in finding that appellant is able to comply with its orders of prod......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT