Contempt Appeals with Specific-but- Unspecified Contempt Sanctions
In Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic, LLC, the Tenth Circuit held that it could review an order holding a non-party in civil contempt. Although the exact amount the party would have to pay was undetermined, the order was sufficiently specific in requiring a “sum certain” of $1,000/day. And although the district court had not yet determined the amount of attorneys fees owed for the contempt, those fees were collateral to the civil contempt and thus did not preclude finality.
The Contempt Order in Coomer
Coomer stemmed from a non-party’s failure to complete a deposition. The witness was properly subpoenaed, the district court ordered him to testify, and the witness initially appeared for his deposition. But midway through, he left and did not return. He instead “returned to his home and began broadcasting an online podcast boasting about fleeing the deposition and commenting disparagingly about the magistrate judge presiding over the deposition.”
The district court held the witness in civil contempt. The court ordered him to pay $1,000/day until he complied with the court’s orders to sit for a deposition. The court also ordered the witness to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs, though the court did not specify the amount.
Appealing Specific-but-Unspecified Contempt Sanctions
The witness appealed. And the Tenth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over the appeal.
An order holding a non-party in civil contempt is normally a final, appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. But to be final, the district court must specify the sanction. Otherwise the order is akin to a determination of liability but not damages—a classic non-final decision.
The Tenth Circuit concluded that the contempt sanction in Coomer was sufficiently specific. To be sure, the ultimate amount was not yet determined. But there was a specific, unavoidable sanction of $1,000/day.
The Collateral Attorneys-Fees Issue
The unresolved attorneys-fees issue did not change things. That’s because attorneys fees are normally collateral to the merits. Hence the rule that a decision on the merits of a lawsuit is final and appealable despite an unresolved issue of attorneys fees.
Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic, LLC, 2025 WL 1701776 (10th Cir. June 18, 2025), available at the Tenth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
A ruling on liability is not final until the court specifies a remedy. But what if that remedy consists entirely of attorney fees? The Supreme Court has long held that a decision on the merits is final despite any unresolved issues regarding attorney fees. So is a ruling on liability final when the remedy is […]
Continue reading....
In In re Grand Jury Subpoena, the Eleventh Circuit explained that it could not review a contempt decision without a sanction.
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....