How are injunctions enforced?

Factual Questions
1

Short version: How are injunctions issued by civil courts enforced? That is, if someone attempts to breaks an injunction, who’s going to stop them? Does one summon the police, or does one have to go directly to the court to complain that the injunction has been broken?

Long version, with illustrative example: Say there is a small but well-established and well-known non-profit organization. Let’s call it the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Anteaters (SPCA). A few members of SPCA think that the Society should expand its efforts to include the protection of aardvarks as well, arguing that an aardvark is technically an anteater because it also eats ants. However, they are unable to convince the rest of the membership, so they resign in protest. A few weeks later, these former members decide to establish a new organization, but they give it the same name: the Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Anteaters (SPCA). They start holding public events in the name of their new SPCA.

According to the law (in England at least), this is not a criminal matter, since the new group is upfront about its lack of connection to the original SPCA, and the police rule that no deception (i.e., fraud) is taking place. However, they are committing the tortious wrong of “passing off” (i.e., infringement of the unregistered trademark on the SPCA name), so the original SPCA takes the new SPCA to court and gets an injunction against the new SPCA from using the SPCA name.

The new SPCA, however, are political/religious fanatics, and vow to continue using the name of the SPCA, since they claim it is their God-given duty to protect the rights of all anteaters, aardvark or otherwise, and injunctions be damned. They’re not afraid of fines (some of the members have very deep pockets) or bankruptcy (some of the members are already in poverty). So they continue advertize and hold public events using the SPCA name.

What recourse does the original SPCA have then? Can they call the police and get them to physically prevent the events from taking place? That is, do the police actually enforce civil injunctions? Will the police arrest the event organizers and charge them with contempt of court, or will they simply shut down the event? If the latter, does this mean that the police will have to be called to every single enjoined event, like whack-a-mole? If the police aren’t responsible for enforcing the injunction, then who is? Would the original SPCA have to bring a new lawsuit against the SPCA every time they break the injunction?

2

Where I am, the party who wants to enforce an injunction files a motion for contempt with the judge who issued the injunction. Then there’s usually an evidentiary hearing. Cops are wary about enforcing an order without a judge telling them to do it.

The outcomes vary too, but hefty daily fines are typical.

The cops ususally only get involved if you get a lien on the party’s property, but a judge could order the sheriff to go take down the sign (in your example)

Your mileage WILL vary based on the situation, the judge, and the original order.

3

Sorry.

And yes the aggrieved party may need to file motions at each step of enforcement. But judges hate to see their orders ignored and will usually step up the enforcement if he’s ordered contempt and the party hasn’t complied.

That’s the simple answer.

4

If a party violates a court order, the aggrieved party will file a motion in the court asking the judge to find the violator in contempt. If the judge does so, there are a variety of options that the judge has depending on circumstances.

The first is imposing damages based on the cost of the violation to the aggrieved party or the benefit to the violator (or some other measure).

The second is to impose a condition intended to compel the violator to comply. This can be a monitary penalty, like the $1 million per day charged against the Transit Workers Union in the 2005 NYC Transit Strike. Another possibility is to order the violator confined in jail until he or she relents. For instance, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was confined in civil contempt for failure to reveal her sources regarding the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA operative. She was released when she agreed to testify.

The third is finding the violator in criminal contempt, in which case the violator may be jailed or fined as a criminal penalty. For instance, in the Judith Miller case, criminal contempt charges were considered, but because she testified they were never pursued.

Judges have a good deal of flexibility to design a contempt penalty that is appropriate for the violation and the violator. In your example, the judge could order the leaders of the stop holding meeetings and using the names. If the leaders did not, they could be financially penalized, or if that were ineffective, found in criminal contempt and jailed. Normally the police would not be involved in a civil contempt matter (except if the judge ordered them to confine a civil condemnor), but in a criminal contempt matter, they would respond to a bench warrant or other process for the arrest of a violator.

5

What **Billdo ** said. Here is a great discussion of contempt in the federal system: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/39mcrm.htm

Here is a case where a guy was found in criminal contempt for violating an injunction: http://www.ago.mo.gov/lawsuits/2003/061903towing.pdf

6

Nice answers, guys.

7

Am I correct in assuming that in the first case, the damages would be paid to the aggrieved party, whereas in the second case, the court pockets the fine? If so, what does the court do with all the fines it collects? Does the court keep that money for its own purposes? That seems like an invitation for flagrant abuse of power. A judge who thinks his chambers need remodelling but who is told that the court currently lacks the money for renovation this year might impose ridiculously high fines in order to influence the court’s budget for next year.

8

Did anyone pay attention to the fact that the poster is not from the United States? Presumably, dealing with contempt of court is similar in the UK, but it might have some twists due to the lack of separation of powers there. :confused: