Perez

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EUGENE SCALIA, Case No. 16-cv-00542-JD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE CONTEMPT

9 v. PROCEEDINGS

10 RAZEL & RUZTIN, LLC, et al., Defendants. 11

12 On the Secretary of Labor’s motion, the Court previously issued an order to show cause 13 why Razel & Ruztin, LLC; CADS, LLC; I CARE Ventures LLC; Razel Cortez; Elizabeth Palad; 14 and Ruztin Cortez (collectively, “Contemnors”) should not be held in contempt of the Court’s 15 March 7, 2016 Consent Judgment and Order. Dkt. No. 18. After review of the responsive filings 16 by the parties, Dkt. Nos. 20, 21, 24, and 26, the Court orders as follows. 17 “[C]ivil contempt proceedings serve two purposes: (1) coercing compliance with a court 18 order; and (2) compensating the prevailing party.” Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. International 19 Longshore and Warehouse Union, Locals 21 and 4, 721 F.3d 1122, 1128 (9th Cir. 2013). “The 20 moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors 21 violated a…