Appellees Brief - MLive.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ i Index of Authorities ...................................................................................................... iv Counter-Statement of Jurisdiction ............................................................................. vii Counter-Statement of Questions Presented ................................................................ ix Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Counter-Statement of Facts and proceedings .............................................................. 5 RECEIVED by Michigan Court of Appeals 1/27/2012 7:20:43 PM 1. MDOT Complaint and Summary Disposition Motions ................ 5 2. DIBC‘s appeal of the February 1, 2010 Opinion and Order ........ 7 3. DIBC‘s direct efforts to avoid compliance with the February 1, 2010 Opinion and Order and avoid the show cause contempt hearing. .............................................................. 12 4. DIBC‘s parallel efforts to avoid compliance with the February 1, 2010 Opinion ........................................................... 15 5. The first show cause contempt hearing ...................................... 17 6. The trial court‘s efforts to address DIBC‘s continuing noncompliance .................................................................................... 21 a. March 15, 2011 Opinion and Order of the Court. ............ 21 b. June 17, 2011 Opinion and Order of the Court. .............. 21 c. June 13, 2011 Order to Show Cause. ............................... 23 d. July 8, 2011 Order. ........................................................... 27 e. August 11, 2011 Opinion and Order. ............................... 29 f. September 1, 2011 Adjournment of Hearing Order. ....... 31 g. November 3, 2011 Opinion and Order—Second Contempt ........................................................................... 32 h. December 13, 2011 Opinion and Order of the Court. ...... 37 i
Argument ..................................................................................................................... 38 I. This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of the trial court‘s February 1, 2010 opinion and order. ................................................................ 38 A. Analysis .................................................................................................. 38 II. The trial court appropriately sanctioned DIBC corporate officials Moroun and Stamper after proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. ................................................................................................................. 41 RECEIVED by Michigan Court of Appeals 1/27/2012 7:20:43 PM III. IV. A. Standard of Review ................................................................................ 41 B. Analysis .................................................................................................. 41 1. Appellants had full notice of the show cause hearing and possible imposition of civil coercive sanctions. ........................... 44 2. Appellants had a full opportunity for hearing. .......................... 46 The trial court‘s imprisonment of DIBC officials was not outside the range of principled outcomes in light of DIBC‘s refusal to comply with the court‘s order for nearly two years. ............................................................. 47 A. Lack of preservation ............................................................................... 47 B. Standard of Review ................................................................................ 48 C. Analysis .................................................................................................. 49 The February 1, 2010 opinion and order is sufficiently ―specific‖ and ―definite‖ to support the trial court‘s second finding of contempt. .................. 54 A. Lack of preservation ............................................................................... 54 B. Standard of Review ................................................................................ 55 C. Analysis .................................................................................................. 56 1. Appellants waived their right to challenge the specificity of the February 1, 2010 opinion and order. ................................ 56 2. The law of the case doctrine preludes Appellants‘ challenge to the specificity of the February 1, 2010 opinion and order. ........................................................................ 57 ii
Page 1: STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE COURT OF A
Page 5 and 6: INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases Arm
Page 7 and 8: Rules MCR 7.205(f)(3) .............
Page 9 and 10: the January 12, 2012 order is not a
Page 11 and 12: not act as both accuser and fact fi
Page 13 and 14: with the February 1, 2010 order or
Page 15 and 16: (3) barring DIBC from raising any f
Page 17 and 18: On October 29, 2009 MDOT filed a mo
Page 19 and 20: and satisfy the February 1, 2010 Or
Page 21 and 22: the Court‘s February 1, 2010 Orde
Page 23 and 24: 3. DIBC’s direct efforts to avoid
Page 25 and 26: the action in federal court. Consid
Page 27 and 28: took the motions under advisement.
Page 29 and 30: Order. After hearing oral argument,
Page 31 and 32: DIBC‘s schemes fail, however, as
Page 33 and 34: DIBC‘s claim that MDOT‘s suppor
Page 35 and 36: granted summary disposition concern
Page 37 and 38: The timetable lists, for example, t
Page 39 and 40: surety. (7/7/11 Tr., pp. 154). Mr.
Page 41 and 42: On August 11, 2011, the Court issue
Page 43 and 44: site plan sheets C-1 6 in Exhibit E
Page 45 and 46: provisions of Section 8 of the Gate
Page 47 and 48: The Court has considered the eviden
Page 49 and 50: was sanctioned and again ordered to
Page 51 and 52: the order enters. MCR 7.204(A)(1)(a
Page 53 and 54:
protect fraud, or defend crime, the
Page 55 and 56:
361, 366, 55 L Ed 771, 31 S Ct 538
Page 57 and 58:
Notice was again given in the Novem
Page 59 and 60:
On appeal, the corporate officials
Page 61 and 62:
In re Meizlish was a criminal conte
Page 63 and 64:
construction (or a joint venture fo
Page 65 and 66:
After careful review it appears tha
Page 67 and 68:
preponderance of the evidence stand
Page 69 and 70:
This Court has previously determine
Page 71 and 72:
B. Analysis The corporate officials
Page 73 and 74:
Finally, the corporate officials cl
Page 75 and 76:
The corporation officials‘ allega
show all

Appellees Brief - MLive.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?