The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 AARON STANZ, individually and Case No. 3:22-CV-01164-GPC-JLB
derivatively on behalf of Jet Genius
12
Holdings, Inc., ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
13 RECOMMENDATION GRANTING
Plaintiff,
IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
14
v. THE MOTION TO ENFORCE FEE
15 AWARD AND FOR CIVIL
JORDAN BROWN; JET GENIUS
CONTEMPT
16 HOLDINGS, INC.; JET GENIUS
FLORIDA HOLDINGS, INC.; C3 JETS
17 [ECF Nos. 230, 237]
LLC; BOWMAN AVIATION, INC.; JET
18 AGENCY GLOBAL LLC; C3 LIMO
LLC; JETCHARTER.COM LLC; and
19
DOES 1-20,
20
Defendants.
21
22
Before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Stanz (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion to Enforce Fee
23
Award and for Civil Contempt re Non-Payment; Request for Coercive Per-Diem Fine and
24
Additional Fees. ECF Nos. 230. Defendants Jordan Brown (“Brown”), Jet Genius
25
Holdings, Inc. (“JGH”), Jet Genius Florida Holdings, Inc., Bowman Aviation, Inc., Jet
26
Agency Global, LLC, C3 Jets, LLC, and C3 Limo, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) did
27
1 not file an opposition. On January 29, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhart issued a
2 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that this Court initiate civil contempt proceedings
3 against Defendants and impose contempt sanctions in the form of a coercive per diem
4 fine. ECF No. 236. However, the R&R recommends that Plaintiff's request for attorney's
5 fees and costs incurred preparing the instant Motion be denied. Id. No opposition to the
6 R&R was filed.
7 After careful consideration of the pleadings, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate
8 Judge's R&R.
9 BACKGROUND
10 In January 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and
11 for an Order Awarding Attorney's Fees (“Motion to Compel”). ECF No. 188. Plaintiff
12 sought to compel responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production (Set One) served on
13 Defendants. Id. at 2. Defendants filed an opposition, ECF No. 190, and Plaintiff filed a
14 reply, ECF No. 191. Magistrate Judge Burkhart held hearings regarding the Motion to
15 Compel on May 15, 2025 and May 28, 2025. ECF Nos. 207, 210.
16 On June 6, 2025, Magistrate Judge Burkhart issued an Order Granting Plaintiff's
17 Motion to Compel (“Order”). ECF No. 215. The Court found that Defendants' discovery
18 positions were not reasonably justified and that an award of attorney's fees would not be
19 unjust. Id. at 23. Accordingly, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a declaration
20 substantiating the reasonable fees incurred by his counsel in filing his reply and attending
21 the two hearings within ten (10) days of the date of the Order. Id. at 27. The Court also
22 instructed Defendants to file any opposition challenging the reasonableness of the amount
23 of attorney's fees within five (5) days of Plaintiff's filing of his declaration. Id. On June
24 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Declaration of Attorney Matt Blum in support of Reasonable
25 Attorney's Fees Incurred. ECF No. 216. Defendants did not file an opposition.
26
27
1 By order dated August 14, 2025, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorneys' fees
2 totaling $11,400 and ordered Defendants to pay this sum to Plaintiff within 30 days of the
3 date of the order. ECF No. 224. Plaintiff's counsel attests that Defendants have failed to
4 remit payment in accordance with the Court's August 14, 2025 order. ECF No. 230-1 at
5 2; ECF No. 230-2 ¶ 2.
6 On January 29, 2026, Magistrate Judge Burkhart issued a Report and
7 Recommendation (“R&R”) that this Court initiate civil contempt proceedings, impose
8 sanctions in the form of coercive per diem fines, and deny Plaintiff’s request for
9 attorneys’ fees and costs incurred preparing the instant Motion. ECF No. 236. Neither
10 party filed an opposition to the R&R.
11 LEGAL STANDARD
12 I. Standard of Review of Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
13 In reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court
14 “must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection
15 is made” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
16 recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
17 72(b); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675 (1980).
18 Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any
19 review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474
20 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“We are therefore not persuaded that the statute positively requires
21 some lesser review by the district court when no objections are filed.”); United States v.
22 Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“statute makes it clear that the
23 district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo
24 if objection is made, but not otherwise”); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13
25 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo review of a R&R is only required when an objection
26 is made to the R&R”) (citing Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121); see also Schmidt v.
27
1 Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (interpreting Ninth Circuit's
2 decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to
3 review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection”). Here, no objection was filed.
4 II. Civil Contempt and Sanctions
5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(e) allows the Court to find a party in contempt
6 for failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(e). Civil contempt “consists of
7 a party's disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to take all
8 reasonable steps within the party's power to comply.” Inst. of Cetacean Rsch. v. Sea
9 Shepherd Conservation Soc'y, 774 F.3d 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Dual–
10 Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993)).
11 However, good faith actions based on reasonable interpretations of a court order are a
12 defense to civil contempt. Reno Air Racing Ass'n., Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130
13 (9th Cir.2006)
14 In a civil contempt action, “[t]he moving party has the burden of showing by clear
15 and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the
16 court. The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to
17 comply.” Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Enforma Nat. Prod., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir.
18 2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
19 If a party has been found in civil contempt, the Court has discretion to impose
20 sanctions. United States v. United Mine Works of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 701, 67 S.Ct. 677,
21 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); United States v. Bright, 596 F.3d 683, 696 (9th Cir. 2010)
22 (“[A]lthough the district court generally must impose the minimum sanction necessary to
23 secure compliance ... the district court retains discretion to establish appropriate
24 sanctions[.]”). Within the scope of civil contempt, courts can impose sanctions that (1)
25 “coerce compliance with a court order” or (2) are “meant to compensate the complainant
26 for actual losses.” See Ahearn ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union,
27
1 Locals 21 & 4, 721 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[A] sanction generally is civil if it
2 coerces compliance with a court order or is a remedial sanction meant to compensate the
3 complainant for actual losses.”); Cruz v. Nike Retail Servs., Inc., 346 F.R.D. 107, 114
4 (S.D. Cal. 2024) (“The purpose of civil sanctions is to ensure compliance with court
5 orders and to compensate aggrieved parties for the sanctioned party's failure to comply
6 with court rules and orders.”).
7 DISCUSSION
8 I. Civil Contempt
9 As previously stated, civil contempt “consists of a party's disobedience to a
10 specific and definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party's
11 power to comply.” Inst. of Cetacean Rsch. v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y, 774 F.3d
12 935, 945 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Dual–Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust
13 Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir.1993)). However, good faith actions based on reasonable
14 interpretations of a court order are a defense to civil contempt. Reno Air Racing Ass'n.,
15 Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir.2006).
16 Here, Magistrate Judge Burkhart’s August 14, 2025 order awarding Plaintiff
17 $11,400 in attorneys' fees constitutes a specific and definite order. See ECF No. 224.
18 Especially in the absence of any opposition, Plaintiff's attestation that Defendants failed
19 to remit payment in accordance with this Court's August 14, 2025 order constitutes clear
20 and convincing evidence of Defendant's noncompliance. ECF No. 230-2 ¶ 2; see
21 also Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency v. Reziapkine, No. 2:21-CV-02235-DAD-JDP, 2025 WL
22 1331306, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 7, 2025) (holding that affidavits and exhibits proffered by
23 plaintiff constituted clear and convincing evidence that defendant violated a court order).
24 Thus, the burden shifts to Defendants to demonstrate that they “took every reasonable
25 step to comply, and to articulate reasons why compliance was not possible.” HM Elecs.,
26
27
1 Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12-CV-2884-BAS (MDD), 2014 WL 12102169, at *1 (S.D.
2 Cal. Dec. 16, 2014). However, Defendants failed to file an opposition.
3 Given the above and that Defendants have not opposed the instant motion, have,
4 have not opposed the R&R, and have not established their burden of being unable to
5 comply, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown Defendants violated and continues to be
6 in violation of the August 14, 2025 Order. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the
7 Plaintiff’s motion for civil contempt and finds Defendants in contempt.
8 II. Sanctions
9 Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “authorizes the district court, in its
10 discretion, to impose a wide range of sanctions when a party fails to comply with the
11 rules of discovery or with court orders enforcing those rules.” Compass Bank v. Morris
12 Cerullo World Evangelism, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1040, 1052 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (citation
13 omitted); see also Guifu Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc, 281 F.R.D. 373, 390 (N.D.
14 Cal. 2012) (“As a condition precedent to imposing sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of
15 Civil Procedure 37 the Defendants must have violated a Court Order”). There are two
16 limitations to the application of a Rule 37(b)(2) sanction. “First, any sanction must be
17 ‘just’; second, the sanction must be specifically related to the particular ‘claim’ which
18 was at issue in the order to provide discovery.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des
19 Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)).
20 Plaintiff requests that the Court: (i) impose a coercive sanction of $500 per day per
21 contemnor and (ii) award Plaintiff additional attorneys’ fees and costs. ECF No. 230-1 at
22 5.
23 a. Coercive Fines
24 A coercive sanction is imposed to coerce further obedience with court
25 order. United States v. United Mine Works of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 701 (1947). A per diem
26 fine imposed for each day a contemnor fails to comply with an affirmative court order “is
27
1 fundamentally coercive and civil because, so long as ‘the jural command is obeyed, the
2 future, indefinite, daily fines are purged.’” Coleman v. Newsom, 131 F.4th 948, 963 (9th
3 Cir. 2025) (quoting Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821,
4 829 (1994)). “A court, in determining the amount and duration of a coercive fine, must
5 ‘consider the character and magnitude of the harm threatened by continued contumacy,
6 and the probable effectiveness of any suggested sanction in bringing about the result
7 desired.’” Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 516 (9th Cir.
8 1992) (quoting United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 304 (1947)).
9 However, a coercive per diem fine cannot constitute a civil contempt sanction where the
10 record shows that compliance with the court's order is impossible. Falstaff Brewing
11 Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 782 (9th Cir. 1983) (reasoning that “the
12 district court's order of contempt simply [could not] be sustained as a coercive civil
13 contempt order,” where “it was impossible for [the contemnor] to purge itself of
14 contempt by returning documents which were in the sole possession of its counsel”).
15 Plaintiff asserts that the Court should impose on Defendants “[a] purgeable and
16 compensatory per-diem fine” of $500 per day per contemnor, “payable to the Clerk, until
17 payment is made, insisting that such a sanction is “appropriately tailored to coerce
18 compliance and compensate Plaintiff.” ECF No. 230-1 at 5 (citing Bagwell, 512 U.S. at
19 829-30).
20 Here, Defendants do not assert any inability to pay the $11,400 attorney's fee
21 award. Indeed, as noted above, Defendants failed to oppose Plaintiff's Motion.
22 Considering Defendants' chronic noncompliance with court orders in the instant
23 litigation, as outlined extensively in the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and
24 Recommendation on January 29, 2026, ECF No. 236, the Court adopts the Magistrate
25 Judge’s recommendation and imposes a coercive sanction of $100 per day, to be paid to
26 the Court by Defendants until the amount of $11,400 is remitted to Plaintiff in
27
1 accordance with the Court's August 14, 2025 Order. Defendants may pay this amount
2 jointly or severally.
3 b. Additional Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
4 Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C), Plaintiff contends that the
5 Court should order Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff for the fees and costs incurred
6 preparing the instant Motion. ECF No. 230-1 at 5.
7 However, Rule 37(b)(2)(C) mandates awarding attorneys' fees incurred in
8 connection with the failure of a party to obey an order to provide or permit discovery. In
9 contrast, Plaintiff seeks to recover attorney's fees incurred as a result of Defendants'
10 failure to pay the August 14, 2025 attorney's fee award. ECF No. 224. Thus, Rule
11 37(b)(2)(C) is inapplicable.
12 Though “[a]n award of attorney's fees for civil contempt is within the discretion of
13 the district court,” the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. Just Goods, Inc. v. Just,
14 Inc., No. 18-CV-02198-WHO, 2023 WL 5345827, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2023), aff'd
15 sub nom. Just Goods, Inc. v. Eat Just, Inc., No. 23-16100, 2024 WL 4850827 (9th Cir.
16 Nov. 21, 2024) (quoting Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal & Prof'l Publications, Inc. v.
17 Multistate Legal Studies, Inc., 26 F.3d 948, 953 (9th Cir. 1994)); see also Perry v.
18 O'Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 705 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that “[a]ttorneys' fees frequently
19 must be expended to bring a violation of an order to the court's attention,” and holding
20 that “the trial court should have the discretion to analyze each contempt case individually
21 and decide whether an award of fees and expenses is appropriate as a remedial
22 measure”). Given the coercive per diem fines imposed in the prior order by this Court,
23 see ECF No. 239, and the coercive per diem fines imposed in this instant order, the Court
24 DENIES Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred preparing the instant
25 motion.
26 / / /
27
1 CONCLUSION
2 Based on the above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation,
3 || GRANTS IN PART the motion as to civil contempt and as to sanctions in the form of
4 || coercive per diem fines, and DENIES IN PART the motion as to Plaintiffs request for
5 || additional attorneys’ fees and costs.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 || Dated: March 9, 2026 2 sale C4
8 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
9 United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 22-CV-01164-GPC-JLB