# Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Accelerated Engineering Services, Inc.

> District Court, N.D. California · October 25, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076868

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** October 25, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076868

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing evidentiary standard 24 to prove civil contempt

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 22-cv-04374-TLT
LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE
8 TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
9
Plaintiffs, Re: ECF No. 28
10
v.
11
ACCELERATED ENGINEERING
12 SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
13
14
15 On July 10, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for an order to show cause (1) why the Court should
16 not hold Defendant Accelerate Engineering Services, Inc. (“Accelerated”) and Sierra Elizabeth
17 Schneider, Accelerated’s alleged CEO, CFO, and Secretary, in civil contempt and (2) why the
18 Court should not impose monetary sanctions against Accelerated and Ms. Schneider in the amount
19 of $1,400 for the fees incurred in making its motion. See ECF No. 28.
20 Plaintiffs supported its motion with evidence that Accelerated had failed to produce
21 documents in response to the Court’s April 13, 2023 order granting a motion for default judgment.
22 See ECF Nos. 25, 26; ECF No. 28-1 (“Lauziere Decl.”) ¶ 5; Inst. of Cetacean Rsch. v. Sea
23 Shepherd Conservation Soc'y, 774 F.3d 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2014) (describing evidentiary standard
24 to prove civil contempt). But Plaintiffs did not fully address the requirements to hold Ms.
25 Schneider, a non-party, in civil contempt. While Ms. Schneider was served with the Court’s April
26 13, 2023 order, Plaintiffs has not shown that Ms. Schneider abetted Accelerated in violating the
27 order. See ECF No. 26; Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1323-24 (describing
1 declarations by the non-party or other evidence that confirms Ms. Schneider was an officer of
2 || Accelerated during the relevant period and had control over Accelerated’s compliance with the
3 order at issue. See e.g., Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., No. 17-CV-00755, 2023 WL 360242, at
4 *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023) (providing examples of evidence plaintiff relied on to hold non-
5 party in contempt).
6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for an order to show cause as to
7 Accelerated, but DENIES the motion without prejudice as to Ms. Schneider. No later than
8 November 6, 2023, Accelerated shall show cause why civil contempt sanctions should not be
9 imposed against them. Any response to this order shall be supported with admissible evidence.
10 || The Court will consider any response filed by Accelerated at a hearing scheduled for March 5,
11 2024.
12 Plaintiffs’ counsel is hereby ordered to provide a copy of this order to Accelerated and Ms.
5 13 Schneider within one business day of the date this order is filed and to file a declaration attesting
14 || to that within two days thereafter.
3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
a 16 Dated: October 24, 2023

TRINA L. PSON
19 United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076868. Public record. Not legal advice.