Sanders v. Monsanto Co.

Decision Date30 May 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-2249,77-2249
Citation574 F.2d 198
Parties17 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 929, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8335 George B. SANDERS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MONSANTO COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Gabrielle K. McDonald, Mark T. McDonald, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

William N. Wheat, Neta L. Frazier, Houston, Tex., for Local 347, et al.

Tom M. Davis, Tony P. Rosenstein, Houston, Tex., for Monsanto Co.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before MORGAN and GEE, Circuit Judges, and KING, District Judge. *

LEWIS R. MORGAN, Circuit Judge:

In this civil rights action, appellants appeal the lower court's denial of their motion to hold appellees in contempt. Appellants contend that the court erred in two regards: by failing to hold an oral hearing on the contempt motion, and by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in arriving at its order denying appellants' motion. We agree with appellants' position and therefore reverse and remand.

Because the instant appeal is from a contempt order, it is necessary to examine the underlying legal and factual framework. In 1971, a class action was instituted by appellant Sanders against Monsanto and the Trade Council on behalf of all black employees similarly situated, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Prior to class certification, however, the parties presented a consent order to the court which it subsequently accepted after notice to affected class members. The district court retained jurisdiction of the case for three years from the entry of the order for the purpose of insuring the integrity of the order.

On January 21, 1977, appellants filed their motion to hold appellees in contempt of the consent order. Additionally, they filed a claim in the alternative for further relief. The motions were supported by accompanying affidavits. In answer, the Company and Trades Council filed its reply, also accompanied by affidavits, denying appellants' claims. Subsequent to appellees' reply, appellants' counsel requested an oral hearing on the contempt motion, which the court below denied. On April 28, 1977, the district court denied appellants' motion to hold appellees in contempt.

Before proceeding to the merits of this appeal, it is necessary to establish this court's jurisdiction on appeal. Except for interlocutory matters covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1292, this court has jurisdiction on appeal to review only final decisions from district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Normally, a civil contempt motion involving a party that occurs in the course of a litigation is non-final, whether granted or denied. Doyle v. London Guarantee Co., 204 U.S. 599, 27 S.Ct. 313, 51 L.Ed. 641 (1907). Contempt motions that are not part and parcel of a continuing litigation, however, are final and subject to review because with respect to the contempt issue, no further district court action occurs. Therefore, a civil contempt order directed at a non-party has been held final for the purpose of review. Southern Ry. Co. v. Lanham, 403 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1968), reh. denied, 408 F.2d 348; Fenton v. Walling, 139 F.2d 608 (10th Cir. 1943), cert. denied, 321 U.S. 798, 64 S.Ct. 938, 88 L.Ed. 1086. Moreover, if a motion for civil contempt is denied after the entry of the judgment which was the subject of the contempt, the denial is final and reviewable because no further district court action is necessary to give life to the denial. Gilbert v. Johnson, 490 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1974). The instant case is analogous to the situation faced by this court in Gilbert. The consent order, when accepted by the court, operated as a final judgment. Therefore, because the motion for contempt was denied after this "judgment," as in Gilbert, and no further action by the district court was necessary to quicken the denial, the action by the district court is final and therefore reviewable.

Being satisfied ourselves that jurisdiction exists, we may address appellants' contentions that procedural errors occurred in the course of the denial. Appellants contend that the court erred in failing to hold an oral hearing on the motion for contempt. Normally, Rule 43(e) provides the procedure for a motion to be heard. As provided by Rule 43(e), the court may decide a motion on affidavits or may, apparently in its discretion, direct that the matter be heard on oral testimony. Appellants argue, however, that because a civil contempt action is more in the nature of a trial on the merits of a breach of the consent "contr...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Amara v. Cigna Corporation
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 10 Noviembre 2022
    ...court action is necessary to give life to the denial," Wright, Miller & Cooper, supra , § 3917 n.66 (quoting Sanders v. Monsanto Co. , 574 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1978) ). And an order finding contempt and imposing sanctions is also "final." See Latino Officers Ass'n , 558 F.3d at 163 ; Wri......
  • Grand Jury Investigation, In re
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 8 Enero 1980
    ...sanctions against them can be appealed by Lance. Lamb v. Cramer,285 U.S. 217, 52 S.Ct. 315, 76 L.Ed. 715 (1932); Sanders v. Monsanto Co.,574 F.2d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1978); Southern Railway Co. v. Lanham, 403 F.2d 119, 124 (5th Cir. III. Request for Contempt Sanctions Lance contends that the......
  • Williamson v. Tucker
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 20 Mayo 1981
    ...may be required to hear oral testimony where the facts are complicated and testimony would be helpful. As we explained in Sanders v. Monsanto Co., supra at 200 (holding, inter alia, that a civil contempt motion cannot be decided under Rule Historical experience has taught us that testimonia......
  • Williamson v. Tucker
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 11 Diciembre 1980
    ...may be required to hear oral testimony where the facts are complicated and testimony would be helpful. As we explained in Sanders v. Monsanto Co., supra at 200 (holding, inter alia, that a civil contempt motion cannot be decided under Rule Historical experience has taught us that testimonia......
  • 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