United States v. Pfeiffer
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
United States v. Pfeiffer
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 20-1974 (DSD/KMM)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
REESE PFEIFFER; JEANNE
PFEIFFER; MICHAEL FRUEN;
JEREMY MARTINEAU; FRUEN &
PFEIFFER, LLP; M. FRUEN
PROPERTIES, LLC;
Defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the government’s motion
for civil contempt and imposition of contempt fines. Based on a
review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the
following reasons, the motion is granted in part.
“[I]t is firmly established that the power to punish for
contempt ... is inherent in all courts.” Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44(1991) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “One of the overarching goals of a court’s contempt power is to ensure that litigants do not anoint themselves with the power to adjudge the validity of orders to which they are subject.” Chi. Truck Drivers v. Bhd. Labor Leasing,207 F.3d 500
,
504 (8th Cir. 2000). “A party seeking civil contempt bears the
initial burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the alleged contemnors violated a court order.” Id. at 505. “At
that point, the burden ... shift[s] to the [defendant] to show an
inability to comply.” Id.
The court has carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and
finds that defendants Reese and Jeanne Pfeiffer are in contempt of
the consent decree approved by the court on October 25, 2021, ECF
No. 81, on the bases set forth in the government’s papers.
Specifically, defendants violated paragraphs 12 and 16 of the
consent decree by purchasing residential rental properties without
notifying the government and by failing to have an independent
management firm oversee and manage those properties. See Samie
Decl.; Kennedy Decl.; Hartman Decl.
Defendants have attempted to excuse their conduct by arguing
that they were unaware of relevant provisions in the consent
decree. The court is wholly unpersuaded by such arguments.
Defendants entered into the consent decree and are charged with
complying with its terms. Any questions as to whether conduct may
violate the terms of the consent decree can readily be answered by
counsel who represented them when they signed the consent decree,
by the government, or by simply reading the consent decree itself.
Further, defendants fail to even assert that they are unable to
comply with the terms of the consent decree. Given these
circumstances, coupled with defendants’ previous violations of the
consent decree,1 the court finds that fines are appropriate and
necessary.
The court has broad discretion to impose appropriate
punishment for a party’s contempt of the court’s authority. United
Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827(1994); Shillitani v. United States,384 U.S. 364, 370
(1966). Such punishment may include fines, imprisonment, or both. Bagwell,512 U.S. at 827
.
The court agrees with the government that the fine here should
total $35,600, based on the established violations of the consent
decree. See ECF No. 91, at 17.
The court declines, however, to order that any future
violations will be subject to a fine in the amount of $1,000 per
incident, as the government requests. Should other suspected
violations occur, the court will address the matter on its merits
rather than prospectively.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The motion for contempt and the imposition of fines [ECF
No. 89] is granted in part as set forth above;
2. Defendants Reese Pfeiffer and Jeanne Pfeiffer are found
in civil contempt and must pay to the government a civil contempt
1 Defendants were found in contempt of the consent decree
just a few months after it was signed and agreed to pay a fine.
See ECF No. 84, at 9-11; ECF No. 86.
fine of $35,600 within 30 days of receiving instructions for
payment from the government;
3. The government may, at its discretion, seek to have
defendants Reese and Jeanne Pfeiffer reimburse the government for
its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the
terms of the consent decree, as determined by the court; and
4. The court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the
purpose of enforcing the terms of the consent decree and this
contempt order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 2, 2024 s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 20-1974 (DSD/KMM)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
REESE PFEIFFER; JEANNE
PFEIFFER; MICHAEL FRUEN;
JEREMY MARTINEAU; FRUEN &
PFEIFFER, LLP; M. FRUEN
PROPERTIES, LLC;
Defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the government’s motion
for civil contempt and imposition of contempt fines. Based on a
review of the file, record, and proceedings herein, and for the
following reasons, the motion is granted in part.
“[I]t is firmly established that the power to punish for
contempt ... is inherent in all courts.” Chambers v. NASCO,
Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44(1991) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “One of the overarching goals of a court’s contempt power is to ensure that litigants do not anoint themselves with the power to adjudge the validity of orders to which they are subject.” Chi. Truck Drivers v. Bhd. Labor Leasing,207 F.3d 500
,
504 (8th Cir. 2000). “A party seeking civil contempt bears the
initial burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the alleged contemnors violated a court order.” Id. at 505. “At
that point, the burden ... shift[s] to the [defendant] to show an
inability to comply.” Id.
The court has carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and
finds that defendants Reese and Jeanne Pfeiffer are in contempt of
the consent decree approved by the court on October 25, 2021, ECF
No. 81, on the bases set forth in the government’s papers.
Specifically, defendants violated paragraphs 12 and 16 of the
consent decree by purchasing residential rental properties without
notifying the government and by failing to have an independent
management firm oversee and manage those properties. See Samie
Decl.; Kennedy Decl.; Hartman Decl.
Defendants have attempted to excuse their conduct by arguing
that they were unaware of relevant provisions in the consent
decree. The court is wholly unpersuaded by such arguments.
Defendants entered into the consent decree and are charged with
complying with its terms. Any questions as to whether conduct may
violate the terms of the consent decree can readily be answered by
counsel who represented them when they signed the consent decree,
by the government, or by simply reading the consent decree itself.
Further, defendants fail to even assert that they are unable to
comply with the terms of the consent decree. Given these
circumstances, coupled with defendants’ previous violations of the
consent decree,1 the court finds that fines are appropriate and
necessary.
The court has broad discretion to impose appropriate
punishment for a party’s contempt of the court’s authority. United
Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827(1994); Shillitani v. United States,384 U.S. 364, 370
(1966). Such punishment may include fines, imprisonment, or both. Bagwell,512 U.S. at 827
.
The court agrees with the government that the fine here should
total $35,600, based on the established violations of the consent
decree. See ECF No. 91, at 17.
The court declines, however, to order that any future
violations will be subject to a fine in the amount of $1,000 per
incident, as the government requests. Should other suspected
violations occur, the court will address the matter on its merits
rather than prospectively.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The motion for contempt and the imposition of fines [ECF
No. 89] is granted in part as set forth above;
2. Defendants Reese Pfeiffer and Jeanne Pfeiffer are found
in civil contempt and must pay to the government a civil contempt
1 Defendants were found in contempt of the consent decree
just a few months after it was signed and agreed to pay a fine.
See ECF No. 84, at 9-11; ECF No. 86.
fine of $35,600 within 30 days of receiving instructions for
payment from the government;
3. The government may, at its discretion, seek to have
defendants Reese and Jeanne Pfeiffer reimburse the government for
its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the
terms of the consent decree, as determined by the court; and
4. The court retains jurisdiction over this matter for the
purpose of enforcing the terms of the consent decree and this
contempt order.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 2, 2024 s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court Reference
- Status
- Unknown