“Ripeness” & Declaratory Judgments in Cardinal
Chemical

Ripeness is a threshold requirement for DJ


CC Facts:



Interpreted the same as with preventive injunctions
Morton files lawsuit against CC for patent infringement; CC denies
infringement & counterclaims that patent is invalid.
Fed. Cir. finds for CC on infringement issue. BUT dismisses the
counterclaim re invalidity as “moot” because the infringement
issue is no longer pending.
SCT reverses the Fed. Cir. on its mootness ruling – Why?

Is there any reason to hear CC on the validity issue now that the
infringement dispute has gone away?
Is there any “ripe”
controversy?
A situation unripe for declaratory judgment:


Wycoff : Plaintiff (hauling business) seeks a declaration that
it is engaged in interstate commerce. SCT says P’s request
for a declaratory judgment is not ripe because P asked for a
declaration of status rather than a declaration of rights.
What could P have done to make the Court view this as
an actual ripe controversy?
Court discretion to deny a declaratory judgment
Uniform DJA/Mo. Rev. Stat. 527.060

The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or
decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered,
would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to
the proceeding.

When will a DJ likely NOT terminate uncertainty?

P wants a declaration that Y’s will was invalid due to undue influence.


As a beneficiary, P would normally be able to do this in a will
contest. But Y is still alive. And even if undue influence occurred,
she could still change the will so a DJ re this will wouldn’t help.
Often in such cases, you can argue that the particular dispute simply
isn’t ripe.
Differences between preventive injunctions &
declaratory judgments (Wallace example):
Injunction
Dec. Judgment
What must P prove?
1) Irreparable injury
2) Ripeness
1) No irreparable injury
required
2) Ripeness
What does the order say?
Wallace shall stop
collecting the gas
privilege tax from the
railroads.
The gas privilege tax is
unconstitutional as
applied to the railroads.
What if D ignores the
order or grabs P’s
property for unpaid taxes
(e.g., as in Wallace)?
1) D is in contempt
1) D is not in contempt –
BUT can get an
injunction to enforce the
DJ (28 USC '2202 & Mo.
Rev. Stat. 527.080)
2) Injunction has res
judicata effect
2) DJ has res judicata
effect
What is contempt?

Contempt is the court’s power to protect itself and its
orders

It generally is used in two situations

A party or witness (contemnor) acts disrespectfully toward
a judicial body (i.e., disruption in the courtroom, etc.)

A party violates a court order that applies to that party
(e.g., an injunction)
Kinds of contempt – civil compensatory contempt

Compensates non-contemnor for its losses/contemnor’s gains
due to contemnor’s violation of court order
 Responsibility for proof of harm lies w/ non-contemnor

Can be imposed whether violation is willful or merely
inadvertent

Initiated by motion of aggrieved party – civil procedures
apply
 Movant must show violation of order by clear and
convincing evidence
Kinds of contempt – coercive civil contempt

Order designed to coerce contemnor to comply with court
order in the future.


Coercive civil contempt is viewed as remedial rather than
as punishment


Typical methods of coercion - Court jails contemnor until
compliance OR fines for every day of non-compliance (fine is
usually payable to the gov’t)
Contemnor “holds the keys to the jailhouse door”
Civil procedures typically apply (But see Bagwell)

Aggrieved party typically initiates by motion UNLESS it is a
summary contempt (e.g., in-court refusal to testify) where court
is vindicating own rights
Kinds of contempt – criminal contempt

Designed to punish past conduct – vindicate court’s authority
 Characterized by the imposition of a determinate fine or
jail sentence as a result of past behavior – all fines
payable to the state

“Intent” requirement – contempt imposed only for willful
violations
 Willful = purpose or knowledge

Most (but not all) of the procedural protections applicable in
criminal proceedings apply
 PBRD, jury trial for certain $ amounts or sentences, double
jeopardy . . .
UMW v. Bagwell – facts
Longstanding labor disputes between mining companies
and union.
Trial court entered injunction prohibiting various activities
by union – obstruction of ingress/egress to company
facilities, jackrocking, large pickets at certain sites
o
o
o
o
o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caltrop.jpg
1st contempt hearing – court found 72 separate violations
and issued $642,000 fine.
o
Court also announced a prospective fine schedule $100K for future violent breaches of injunction & $20K for
future nonviolent breaches.
At subsequent hearings (7 of them) – court found 400
separate violations of the injunction; imposed $64,000,000
in fines - $52,000,000 payable to the government, the rest
payable to the companies. Civil procedures were used,
except for PBRD requirement.
UMW v. Bagwell
contempt
–
criminal
or
coercive
How do we characterize the contempt fines imposed by
the trial court judge – criminal or civil in nature?
1st set of fines -- $642,000
o
Look criminal – determinate fines for past actions &
payable to gov’t
o
o
2nd set of fines -- $52 million
o
o
Va courts – fines are coercive – civil procedures are
okay
SCT – fines are criminal – criminal procedures should
have been used before imposition
SCT reasoning re Bagwell fines:
Classic Coercive Contempt:
1)
Court issues order: “Disclose your source.”
2)
Reporter who is subject to the order violates it; is found in
contempt; jailed/fined daily until complies with order.
Report can avoid each new fine/imprisonment by complying.
Bagwell conditional fines:
1)
Court issues injunction prohibiting certain destructive
behavior by union.
2)
Court threatens penalties for future violations.
3)
Union violates order; is found in contempt; previously
threatened fines are imposed.
These latter fines look like determinate criminal fines once
imposed even if they look coercive when threatened. Union
doesn’t have opportunity to avoid fines once imposed
When are criminal procedures required with
what
sometimes
looks
like
coercive
contempt:
1.
Can the fine be purged after a contempt finding?

Bagwell – no

Reporter/source -yes
2.
Is the contempt direct (i.e., in the courtroom)?

Bagwell – no

Reporter/source - yes
3.
Is the court’s order that was violated simple or complex?

Bagwell – complex

Reporter/source - simple
Run-of-the mill coercive contempt – the big
question

Can the contempt operate perpetually if the contemnor
refuses to comply?

General rule re release of contemnor:

Court should release contemnor from coercive contempt
when (1) compliance is no longer needed OR (2) the
contempt no longer has a coercive effect.

Anyanwu standard: Is there a substantial likelihood that
continued commitment will accomplish the purpose of the
court order?
 If yes – court can maintain confinement
 If no – court should release contemnor

It is contemnor’s burden to show that the contempt has lost
its coercive impact.
How does a judge determine that the coercive
order has lost it’s impact?

Is it enough that the contemnor avows to “never give in”?



Probably not – refusal to comply is alone insufficient
So what more is needed?
How do factors such as “age, state of health, & length of
confinement” relate to contemnor’s credibility?

“Each case must be decided on an independent evaluation
of all of the particular facts. Age, state of health and length
of confinement are all factors to be weighed, but the critical
question is whether or not further confinement will serve any
coercive purpose.”
Catena v. Seidl (quoted in Anyanwu)
Fact-bound & context-specific inquiries
How does a judge determine contemnor’s
stubbornness has become irrevocable – cont’d

How relevant is the form of testimony re contemnor’s
stubbornness?
 Live testimony vs. affidavits
 Personal testimony vs. third-party testimony
 Psychiatric testimony?

Did the form of Anyanwu’s evidence (along with his actions)
help or hurt his claim regarding the coercive effect of the
contempt?
Impossibility as a defense

Impossibility of compliance with a court order is a defense to
contempt (both criminal and civil coercive).
 It is the contemnor’s burden to prove impossibility

How do we determine when it is impossible for the contemnor to
comply?
 Often it’s just a matter of credibility – does the contemnor’s
story hold up to scrutiny?

What if the contemnor is partly responsible for why she can’t
comply?
 Courts are unlikely to allow the defense. Court will probably
hold a criminal contempt hearing instead since no amount
of coercion is likely to work.