Whittaker Corporation Whittaker Controls, Inc. v. Execuair Corporation Execuair Sales Corporation David Manhan

Bad Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 135·953 F.2d 510·1992 WL 190·21 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1081·21 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1424
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 3, 199290-55176California4,520 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alarcon, J.

Execuair Corporation, Execuair Sales Corporation, Laurence S. Manhan, and David Manhan (Execuair) appeal from an order entered on December 15, 1989 (December 1989 Order) by the district court in favor of Whittaker Corporation and Whit-taker Controls (Whittaker). In its December 1989 Order, the district court found Execuair in contempt of the order entered on June 9, 1987 (June 1987 Order) and adopted the remedies requested by Whit-taker. Execuair does not challenge the order finding it in contempt. Execuair seeks reversal on the following grounds:

One. The amount of the conditional fine imposed by the district court as a coercive sanction was excessive.

Two. The district court lacked the power to require the posting of a one million dollar bond as a security for the payment of the monetary losses suffered by Whit-taker as a result of Execuair’s contempt of the June 1987 Order.

Three. The provisions of the December 1989 Order barring Execuair from engaging in the aircraft surplus parts business is punitive and thus an improper civil contempt sanction.

Four. The court lacked the authority to order the destruction of Execuair’s entire inventory of surplus aircraft parts as a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.