In Re: Application to Adjudge Brent Medlock in Criminal Contempt C.H. Robinson Company C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., United States of America v. Medco, Inc., Also Known as Brent Medlock Medco Forwarding, Inc., Also Known as Brent Medlock, Brent Medlock, Also Known as Douglas Brent Medlock

Citations: 406 F.3d 1066; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 8215Docket: 04-1689

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; May 11, 2005; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Brent Medlock was found guilty of criminal contempt by the district court for failing to comply with court orders requiring his appearance, provision of discovery, and asset assembly. On appeal, Medlock argued insufficient evidence for conviction, violations of his due process rights, and an excessive sentence, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.

Background details reveal that Medlock was the sole shareholder and president of trucking companies Medco Forwarding, Inc. and Medco, Inc. C.H. Robinson Company obtained a default judgment against Medco for $44,814.70 on February 5, 2003, which was registered in Arkansas. A Writ of Execution was issued and personally served to Medlock on June 9, 2003. When asked to pay the judgment, Medlock claimed Medco no longer existed and had no funds. He was asked to provide business registration and asset information, but he stated he needed to speak with his attorney. 

Subsequent attempts by Deputy Marshal Mike Blevins to obtain documentation were met with Medlock's claims of non-existence of Medco and advice from his attorney not to provide the requested documents. Medlock's previous attorney later indicated she no longer represented him. Medco filed a Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution on June 26, 2003, which was denied by the trial court on August 27, 2003, allowing Medco ten days for relief, which was not pursued. Additionally, Robinson's Request for Production of Documents went unanswered by the due date, prompting Robinson to file a Motion to Compel on November 20, 2003.

On December 9, 2003, the district court ordered Medco to respond to a discovery request by December 11. On December 18, Medco filed a motion for an extension to comply with the order, citing the defendants' lack of communication with counsel, and requested to withdraw as counsel. The district court denied this motion on December 29 and scheduled a show cause hearing for January 13, 2004, mandating the defendants' appearance and warning of potential sanctions for noncompliance.

On January 6, 2004, Jenkins provided a response to a request for document production, but it included no relevant information. During the January 13 hearing, Jenkins attended but no defendants were present. After efforts to locate Medlock, who was unresponsive at his home, he was brought to court by marshals. Medlock arrived late, citing an oversight and financial difficulties as reasons for his absence. He claimed that Medco was defunct and lacked assets, contradicting evidence presented by Robinson showing registered equipment under Medco's name.

At the hearing's conclusion, the court ordered Medlock to deliver eleven tractor/trailer units to the Medco terminal by noon on January 20, 2004, and scheduled a follow-up hearing for the same day at 3:00 p.m., requiring both Medlock and his wife to appear. Additionally, Medlock was instructed to provide specific documentation to Robinson within forty-eight hours.

Medlock provided documents to Robinson on January 15 and 16, 2004, but on January 19, Medco filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay against further actions. The next day, Medco submitted its bankruptcy petition to the district court, which noted concerns about the entities Medlock had testified were defunct now seeking bankruptcy protection. Despite the stay, Medco had not complied with a prior court order to produce tractor/trailer units. Jenkins acknowledged that Medlock suggested filing for bankruptcy was necessary if truckers were removed from service. Deputy Marshal Spellman testified about the presence of two tractor/trailer units at the Medco terminal, while others remained operational. The court scheduled a contempt hearing for February 17, 2004. 

On February 4, the district court issued an Order to Show Cause citing contempt grounds, including hindering the U.S. Marshal Service, failing to respond to document requests, not appearing at the January 13 hearing, and not complying with the court's January 13 order. At the February hearing, Medlock admitted to not following court orders and claimed ignorance of their seriousness, stating he hadn’t instructed drivers to relocate their vehicles due to advice from his attorney regarding bankruptcy protections. Subsequently, on March 5, 2004, the district court found Medlock in criminal contempt and on March 11 sentenced him to 15 days in prison and a $10,000 fine.

On appeal, Medlock raised four arguments: (A) the December 29 order was too vague to enforce, (B) he did not willfully disobey court orders, (C) his due process rights were violated by being tried for contempt before Judge Dawson, and (D) the court abused its discretion in sentencing. The court found the December 29 order sufficiently specific to be enforceable, as it clearly required defendants to appear at the January 13 hearing, warning of potential sanctions for noncompliance.

An individual cannot be held in contempt for violating a court order unless the order is specific enough to be enforceable. In this case, Medlock contended that the order requiring "defendants" to appear did not explicitly name him. However, the court found that Medlock, as the president and sole shareholder of Medco, was reasonably aware that he needed to appear. Medlock acted on behalf of Medco in various official capacities, thus the court had the authority to sanction him for the violation. His acknowledgment of his duty to appear, described as an "oversight," further indicated his willfulness. 

Willfulness in contempt cases denotes a deliberate violation rather than an accidental one, and can be inferred from evidence. Medlock admitted to knowing about the court orders and disobeying them. Despite his claims of unsophistication and partial compliance, these were deemed unpersuasive. He was informed of his obligations through multiple communications and was represented by counsel. Despite being served with a Writ for payment and discovery, he did not comply, leading to a default judgment against Medco. Even after a court order to respond, Medco's responses were inadequate, confirming a willful violation of the court's orders.

Medlock was aware of the requirement to appear in court, despite not being named in the order, as he served as the personal representative for Medco entities. His attorney communicated the obligation for Medlock to attend and attempted to contact him shortly before the hearing. When law enforcement arrived to escort him, Medlock delayed leaving his home, making the court wait over two hours for his arrival. This refusal to cooperate suggested a willful failure to appear, even though he did ultimately show up in court.

Medlock argued that his due process rights were violated because he was tried for contempt by the same judge who presided over the original contempt issue. However, he waived this argument by failing to file a timely and sufficient affidavit to disqualify the judge as required by 28 U.S.C. § 144. The district court correctly refused to recuse itself due to the untimeliness and insufficiency of Medlock's affidavit.

The district court sentenced Medlock to fifteen days in prison and a $10,000 fine for contempt. Given Medlock's repeated non-compliance with court orders and his admission of inactivity regarding the court's directives, the sentence was deemed not excessive. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, a United States District Court Judge, found that Medlock's willful failures to appear and provide required discovery constituted contempt of court, making it unnecessary to consider additional issues regarding the tractor/trailer units. After a January 13 hearing, Jenkins recounted Medlock's assertion that Medco would be severely impacted if truckers were removed from service, prompting a bankruptcy filing. Deputy Marshal Mark Spellman confirmed that two tractor/trailer units were at the Medco terminal, while others remained operational. A criminal contempt hearing was scheduled for February 17, 2004, following an Order to Show Cause issued on February 4, citing Medlock for multiple violations: obstructing the U.S. Marshal Service, failing to respond to document requests, not attending the January hearing, and not complying with a prior court order. During the February 17 hearing, testimony from deputies and Medlock revealed his non-compliance and lack of understanding of the orders' seriousness, although he claimed his attorney advised against producing the units due to bankruptcy. Consequently, the court held Medlock in criminal contempt on March 5, 2004, sentencing him to fifteen days in prison and a $10,000 fine. On appeal, Medlock raised four arguments: the December 29 order's enforceability, claims of non-willful disobedience, alleged due process violations during his contempt trial, and the assertion that the sentence was an abuse of discretion. The court determined that the December 29 order was sufficiently specific to be enforceable, aligning with the requirement that contempt orders must provide clear directives.

Medlock, as president and sole shareholder of Medco, was sanctioned for failing to comply with a court order requiring his presence. The court found that Medlock, having initiated actions for Medco and regularly represented it in legal matters, should have understood his obligation to appear, despite the order's lack of explicit mention of him. The court referenced previous cases affirming that orders are binding on corporate officers and agents even without direct reference. Medlock's claim that his absence was an oversight was viewed as an implicit acknowledgment of his duty to appear.

In terms of willfulness regarding contempt, the court clarified that a deliberate violation, as opposed to an accidental one, is required for such a finding. Medlock admitted knowledge of the orders and acknowledged disobedience but contested the assertion of willfulness. He argued that his lack of legal sophistication and eventual partial compliance with discovery requests should negate the claim of willfulness. The court rejected these arguments, noting that Medlock had been informed of his obligations through various communications and had legal representation. His refusal to comply with discovery requests, despite direct service and multiple reminders, demonstrated a willful disregard for the court's orders.

On January 6, Jenkins responded to a discovery request from Robinson, providing minimal information and indicating that most answers were not applicable. This response constituted a willful violation of a court order. Medlock, despite not being explicitly named in the Order to Appear, had a duty to attend due to his role as the personal representative for the Medco entities. His attorney had informed him of the necessity to appear, and efforts were made to contact him prior to the hearing. When law enforcement arrived at his home to escort him, he delayed his departure, making the court wait over two hours. Although Medlock eventually appeared in court, his late arrival and need for an escort indicated a willful failure to comply with the order.

Medlock claimed his due process rights were violated because he was tried for contempt by the same judge who oversaw the initial contempt matter. However, this argument was waived since Medlock did not file a timely and sufficient affidavit as required by 28 U.S.C. § 144 to disqualify the judge for bias. Consequently, the court properly refused to recuse itself.

The district court imposed a sentence of fifteen days' imprisonment and a $10,000 fine on Medlock, which was deemed not excessive. The court has discretion in contempt cases to tailor punishments based on circumstances, and Medlock's repeated noncompliance with court orders warranted the sentence. The court affirmed Medlock's contempt conviction and sentence, noting that willful violations of court orders justified the ruling without needing to address an additional issue regarding failure to assemble tractor/trailer units.