Project B.A.S.I.C. v. Kemp
947 F.2d 11, 1991 WL 207550 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To hold a party in civil contempt, the underlying court order must be clear and unambiguous, providing reasonably definite notice to the party of the specific conduct required and leaving no reasonable doubt as to which party is expected to perform it.
Facts:
- The Providence Housing Authority (PHA) demolished parts of the Hartford Park public housing project, resulting in the loss of 240 housing units.
- Phoenix-Griffin Group II, Ltd. (Phoenix) was contracted as the developer to build much of the replacement housing.
- A dispute arose when the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) questioned whether Phoenix was paying its workers wages required by federal law.
- Following the DOL's request, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) instructed the PHA to withhold a $500,000 payment that was due to Phoenix for its construction work.
- Phoenix claimed that without this $500,000 payment, it would be unable to pay down its line of credit, which would halt funding and prevent the completion of the new housing.
Procedural Posture:
- Project B.A.S.I.C. sued the Providence Housing Authority (PHA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
- In 1989, the district court issued a mandatory injunction (the '1989 Order') requiring PHA to construct 240 replacement housing units.
- On a prior appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found the legal basis for the 1989 Order to be inadequate but left it 'in place provisionally' on remand.
- Subsequently, Phoenix sued HUD and PHA in the same district court, seeking to enjoin them from withholding a $500,000 payment.
- During a hearing on Phoenix's motion, the district court judge, sua sponte, raised the possibility that HUD was in contempt of the 1989 Order.
- The district court found HUD in civil contempt of the 1989 Order and imposed monetary sanctions to coerce compliance.
- HUD, as the appellant, appealed the contempt order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court order that is not explicitly directed at a government agency and does not specify particular actions the agency must take provide the clear and unambiguous command necessary to hold that agency in civil contempt for non-compliance?
Opinions:
Majority - Selya, J.
No. A court order that is not explicitly directed at a party and does not clearly specify the required conduct is too ambiguous to support a finding of civil contempt. Civil contempt is a potent weapon that requires clear and convincing evidence that a party has violated a clear, unambiguous, and specific order. The 1989 Order was directed only at the PHA, mentioning HUD merely as the funding source. Due process and fairness demand that an order provide a party with definite advance notice that it is bound by the order's commands. A court's unstated intentions cannot cure fatal ambiguity in an order's text. Furthermore, HUD was not bound as a party in 'active concert or participation' with PHA under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) because the two are distinct legal entities and HUD's funding relationship did not amount to the legal identification or aiding and abetting necessary to bind a non-targeted party.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the due process requirement for clarity and specificity in injunctive orders before the severe sanction of contempt can be imposed. It establishes that a party's mere involvement in litigation or its institutional relationship with a targeted party is insufficient to make an order binding upon it; the order's text must explicitly name the party and detail its obligations. This precedent creates a high bar for holding non-targeted parties, particularly government agencies with complex interrelationships, accountable for contempt, thereby protecting them from punishment based on ambiguous decrees or unstated judicial intentions.
