Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellants, consisting of Victory Cheval Holdings, LLC, Garrett Jennings, and Castle Crown Management, LLC, filed a motion for contempt against the appellees, Victor Antolik, Dennis Antolik, and Cheval Manor, Inc. The motion arises from alleged violations of a temporary injunction mandating the appellees to secure thirteen horses behind a gated fence. The purported failure to adhere to this injunction has led to damages, including harm to a polo field and injuries to individuals on the property. Previously, the court had referred an unrelated motion for contempt to the trial court under Judge Karin Crump, with a hearing scheduled for September 30, 2015. The appellants requested that their motion be considered concurrently with the existing case, a proposition to which the appellees' counsel agreed. The appellants also sought an evidentiary hearing to address the violations and requested general relief. This procedural alignment aims to streamline judicial resources while addressing the appellants' concerns regarding the alleged infractions of the court's order.
Legal Issues Addressed
Contempt of Court for Violation of Temporary Injunctionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants filed a motion for contempt against the appellees for allegedly violating the terms of a temporary injunction by failing to keep thirteen horses secured, as required by the court order.
Reasoning: Victory Cheval Holdings, LLC, Garrett Jennings, and Castle Crown Management, LLC (Appellants) filed a motion for contempt against Victor Antolik, Dennis Antolik, and Cheval Manor, Inc. (Appellees) regarding a temporary injunction.
Procedure for Motion for Contemptsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants requested that their motion for contempt be heard concurrently with an unrelated contempt motion already scheduled before Judge Karin Crump, with the appellees' counsel agreeing to this arrangement.
Reasoning: The Appellants request that their motion for contempt be addressed concurrently in the same hearing. Counsel for the Appellees has expressed agreement to this request.
Request for Evidentiary Hearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants sought referral of their motion for contempt to Judge Karin Crump for an evidentiary hearing, emphasizing the need for judicial examination of the alleged injunction violations.
Reasoning: The motion concludes with requests for referral to Judge Crump for an evidentiary hearing and for general relief.