[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Show Cause — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-3 v. Austin (Document 95-1)

Summary

A [Proposed] Order, Document 95-1 filed 01/31/22, in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-3, et al. v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01236-O, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Show Cause. It recites that Plaintiffs ask the Court to find Defendants in civil contempt for failing to comply with the preliminary injunction, including as to NAVADMIN 225/21, NAVADMIN 256/21 and Trident Order #12. The proposed order states that Plaintiffs established three elements by clear and convincing evidence, and would require the parties to appear for a hearing at which Defendants must show cause for noncompliance. The signature line names Hon. Reed O'Connor, United States District Judge.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION

U.S. NAVY SEALs 1-3; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated;
U.S. NAVY EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL TECHNICIAN 1, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; U.S.
NAVY SEALS 4-26; U.S. NAVY SPECIAL
WARFARE
COMBATANT
CRAFT
CREWMEN 1-5; and U.S. NAVY DIVERS
1-3,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official
capacity as United States Secretary of Defense;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; CARLOS DEL TORO, in his
official capacity as United States Secretary of
the Navy,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:21-cv-01236-O

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held
in Contempt. Plaintiffs argue that after the Court issued a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 66),
Defendants disregarded and violated the injunction by: (1) failing to comply with the Court’s
preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from applying NAVADMIN 225/21, NAVADMIN
256/21, MANMED § 15-105(4)(n)(9), and Trident Order #12 to Plaintiffs; and (2) failing to
comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from “taking any adverse
action against Plaintiffs on the basis of Plaintiffs’ requests for religious accommodation.” Plaintiffs
ask the Court to find Defendants in civil contempt and defer to the Court to implement appropriate
sanctions.
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95-1   Filed 01/31/22    Page 1 of 3   PageID 2801
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95-1   Filed 01/31/22    Page 1 of 3   PageID 2801

Generally, “[j]udicial sanctions in civil contempt proceedings [are] employed for either or
both of two purposes: to coerce the defendant into compliance with the court’s order [or] to
compensate the complainant for losses sustained.” Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228
F.3d 574, 585 (5th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs, as the party seeking a finding of contempt, “bears the
burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence 1) that a court order was in effect, 2) that
the order required certain conduct by the respondent, and 3) that the respondent failed to comply
with the court’s order.” Martin v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 959 F.2d 45, 47 (5th Cir. 1992). The allegedly
“contemptuous actions need not be willful so long as the contemnor actually failed to comply with
the court’s order.” Am. Airlines, 228 F.3d at 581.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established all three necessary elements by clear and
convincing evidence. First, the preliminary injunction was in effect. (Dkt. 66). Second, the
preliminary injunction required Defendants to refrain from certain conduct. (Dkt. 66 at 26). Third,
Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to show that Defendants did not comply with the
preliminary injunction. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants should be required to
show cause for their noncompliance with the preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause Why
Defendants Should Not Be Held in Contempt is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a hearing on
[___________], 2022. At the hearing, Defendants must show cause for why they should not be
held in civil contempt, and have appropriate sanctions imposed against them, for their
noncompliance with the preliminary injunction (Dkt. 66). Failure to attend the hearing may be a
separate ground for the Court to hold Defendants in civil contempt and impose appropriate
sanctions. See, e.g., In re Shah, 200 F. App’x 349, 350 (5th Cir. 2006) (imposing civil contempt
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95-1   Filed 01/31/22    Page 2 of 3   PageID 2802
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95-1   Filed 01/31/22    Page 2 of 3   PageID 2802

sanctions is appropriate when defendant fails to appear at hearing); RMC Publications v. Doulos
PM Training, No. CIV A 307-CV-2139-O, 2009 WL 1974286, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2009)
(same); see also Quilling for Sardaukar Holdings, IBC v. 3-D Mktg., LLC, No. 3-06-CV-0293-L,
2007 WL 9711514, at *3 (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2007) (corporate officers who do not appear at show
cause hearings in cases to which their companies are parties are subject to civil contempt
sanctions).
Should Defendants wish to respond to this Order in writing, they may do so on or before
[___________], 2022. Responding in writing does not excuse appearance at the hearing.

SO ORDERED this _____ day of __________________, 2022.

_________________________________

Hon. Reed O’Connor

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95-1   Filed 01/31/22    Page 3 of 3   PageID 2803
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O   Document 95-1   Filed 01/31/22    Page 3 of 3   PageID 2803

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.95.1.pdf

Size

175,831 bytes

SHA-256

9eea91bd7caab5e29202e5de23fd0ffc75f2d1d16a6bc0dec0efcdfb37a19b25

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.95.1.pdf

Original

archive.org