Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.

United States District Court, Fourth Circuit

December 20, 2013

METROPOLITAN REGIONAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
v.
AMERICAN HOME REALTY NETWORK, INC. and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JILLYN K. SCHULZE, Magistrate Judge.

Presently pending is a Motion for Relief from Contempt Damages filed by Defendant American Home Realty Network, Inc. (AHRN). ECF No. 230. AHRN seeks to satisfy the court's July 31, 2013 order requiring it to pay a $7, 000 contempt award, ECF No. 185, by pursuing a self-designed payment plan. ECF No. 230 at 2. Plaintiff Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. (MRIS) contends that AHRN has not shown entitlement to relief from the payment order. ECF No. 240. The issues have been fully briefed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6. The court will deny AHRN's motion for relief.

I. Background.

The background to this dispute has been previously documented. For purposes of this memorandum, the following is relevant. On November 13, 2012, the court issued a revised preliminary injunction enjoining AHRN from, inter alia, reproducing MRIS's copyrighted photographs. ECF No. 65. On January 17, 2013, MRIS filed a motion for contempt, seeking damages resulting from AHRN's alleged reproduction of MRIS photographs in violation of the preliminary injunction. ECF No. 92. On June 4, 2013, the court issued a Report and Recommendation which found that AHRN should pay MRIS a compensatory award of $7, 000 for AHRN's unauthorized display of MRIS's copyrighted photographs for the period of November 30, 2012 through January 17, 2013. ECF No. 150. This report was adopted by the court on July 31, 2013. ECF No. 184, 185. The court subsequently set a deadline of October 23, 2013 for AHRN to make the $7, 000 payment. ECF No. 223. On October 22, 2013, AHRN contacted MRIS, stating that AHRN did not have the resources to pay the contempt damages in full, and offering "a payment plan with $700 payable now and another $700 payable on the 23rd day of each of the next 9 months." ECF No. 240-2. MRIS refused to consent to this proposed payment plan.

II. Analysis.

Because AHRN's contempt has already been established, ECF No. 185, the burden is on AHRN to show that it has a present inability to comply. S.E.C. v. SBM Inv. Certificates, Inc., Civ. No. DKC 06-0866, 2012 WL 706999, at *10 (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2012). "The burden of establishing an inability-to-comply defense is difficult to sustain." Id. at *11. The moving party "must present evidence regarding [its] present inability to comply with the [contempt order], and [it] must make this showing categorically and in detail.'" Id. (citation omitted). "Conclusory assertions of financial inability, unsubstantiated by supporting documentation, are insufficient to satisfy this burden." Id. (citations omitted). "Rather, the [moving party] must show that [it] acted in good faith and took all reasonable efforts to comply with the court's order." Id. (citations omitted). Here, AHRN provides (1) a declaration from its general counsel, Christopher Miller; (2) a declaration from its CFO, Bruce Hall; (3) various redacted statements from its Wells Fargo bank account; and (4) a "Cash Flow Summary" submitted for in camera review.

Mr. Miller's declaration states that the Cash Flow Summary, which covers March 22, 2013 to November 4, 2013, "shows, among other items, that vital operating expenses such as salaries, rent, and payments to critical vendors, exceeded the actual and/or anticipated income for each week during such time period." ECF No. 254-3 at 3. Mr. Miller also states that on October 23, 2013, AHRN's bank balance was $1, 048.23. Id. Notably, neither Mr. Miller's declaration nor the Cash Flow Summary provide any details regarding the substance of AHRN's "vital operating expenses" or "salaries, rent, and payments to critical vendors." Nor does AHRN's bank account balance of $1, 048.23 on October 23, 2013, establish that it was impossible for AHRN to pay $7, 000 by that date. AHRN was aware of this obligation on July 31, 2013, and AHRN's financial records show $18, 952.07 in its bank account on October 16, 2013, one week prior to the payment deadline. ECF No. 254-5. AHRN cannot obtain relief by showing that it lacked the required resources at a particular moment in time. AHRN must also justify directing its resources toward other obligations.

AHRN's CFO Hall attests that "[a]t no time since June 4, 2013 was AHRN's bank account balance sufficient to cover a payment of $7, 000 for contempt... in addition to the mandatory operating expenses of the company, which include payroll, utilities, and rent, " and that "the company has not been profitable over any monthly, quarterly or annual reporting period." ECF No. 254-4 at 3. Such conclusory representations would, if accepted, indefinitely shield AHRN from complying with the court's order. It is for this reason that a party seeking to show a present inability to pay must do so "categorically and in detail."

AHRN also attaches redacted Wells Fargo bank statements showing a transaction history from June 3, 2013 to July 30, 2013, and from October 8, 2013 to October 24, 2013.[1] ECF No. 254-5. No explanation is provided as to why the August and September statements, which would be highly relevant to AHRN's ability to pay during those months, have not been provided. In addition, the bank statements that have been provided reveal that AHRN, on most days, had more than $7, 000 at the close of business, and much more than the $1, 048.23 figure cited for October 23, 2013. Without a detailed explanation of what these transactions consist of, and how AHRN is prioritizing its expenses in relation to the court's contempt order, a representation that "the company has not been profitable, " ECF No. 254-4, or that it has zero net profits, is meaningless. See Advance Pharm., Inc. v. United States, 391 F.3d 377, 400 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Lizza Indus., Inc., 775 F.2d 492, 498-99 (2d Cir. 1985)) (noting that "the difference between gross and net profits is often so speculative' and so much a function of bookkeeping conjecture, ' that using net profits as the measure for forfeiture could tip [certain] business decisions in favor of illegal conduct'").

Lastly, AHRN's "Cash Flow Summary, " a sixty-six page document purporting to show daily financial transactions from March 22, 2013 to November 4, 2013, [2] does not explain or synthesize its entries in any way. Again, there is no useful explanation of how AHRN spent its gross revenue, and no attempt to tie the numbers on the Cash Flow Summary to the numbers on the bank statements, leaving the court with an unintelligible picture of AHRN's financial situation. The document is also silent as to the value of any of AHRN's non-liquid assets. It does not come close to justifying relief from the contempt order.

Other courts have similarly rejected unsupported assertions of inability to pay. For example, in E.E.O.C. v. Local 638, Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 889 F.Supp. 642 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) rev'd in part on other grounds and remanded sub nom. City of New York v. Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 170 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 1999), a labor union, fined for violating a court order, contended that the fine would threaten its financial viability. The union submitted a certified public accountant's report purporting to show that the union's financial situation was "so precarious that it [could not] afford any additional expenses." Id. at 669 (emphasis in original). The court found that the report was "so general and relies on so many assumptions, however, that it constitutes a blanket denial of the union's ability to pay rather than a realistic analysis of the union's financial situation." Although the report claimed that the union had exercised "maximum cost cutting techniques, " it failed to explain what these cost cutting techniques were or why more could not be taken. The court refused to base any relief on this report. Id.

In Chao v. SOS Sec. Serv., 526 F.Supp.2d 196 (D.P.R. 2007), defendants also argued that they were unable to comply with a contempt order's payment plan. Id. at 202-03. Defendants supported their position with evidence similar to that provided here: testimony from the company's owner and comptroller, an unaudited financial statement, and partial banks statements. Id. at 203. The court noted that the company, by its own admission, earned a profit of $120, 000 in the previous year, yet "provided no explanation as to why those profits could not have been applied to satisfy the judgment... [n]or have defendants provided the court with sufficient, reliable evidence regarding the state of [the company's] finances in June 2006-when defendants discontinued making the required payments-or for the rest of that year." Id. In addition, although defendants claimed that their business dropped in 2006, they produced no reliable bank records "that would substantiate the amounts of money [the company] received or the amount that was paid for operating expenses." Id. In fact, although profits were supposedly decreasing in 2006, defendants' financial statement indicated that salaries paid to the company's fixed salary employees rose dramatically in 2006. Id.

The Chao court also concluded that the financial information provided for the first half of 2007 was insufficient:

In particular, [the company] provided only selected pages from its bank statements corresponding to the months of January through June of 2007. The pages submitted document total monthly deposits ranging from approximately $101, 000 to $137, 000, and total monthly withdrawals ranging from approximately $110, 000 to $143, 000. Defendants, however, failed to provide complete copies of the bank statements and failed to provide cancelled checks which could have demonstrated who received the money that was withdrawn from the account. This omission is both telling and critical, since defendants have the heavy burden of proving financial inability to pay and the evidence to substantiate this claim is "peculiarly within the defendant's own knowledge" and control. Hodgson [ v. Hotard, 436 F.2d 1110, 1115 (5th Cir. Fla. 1971)]. In this regard, Hodgson is instructive. There, the Fifth ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.