Thomas J. Tucker
Chapter 11
Judge Thomas J. Tucker
ORDER DENYING PRIME FINANCIAL, INC.'S MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF ORDER HOLDING ROBERT KATTULA IN CONTEMPT, AND DENYING
AS MOOT PRIME FINANCIAL'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING
ON THE CONTEMPT MOTION
This case is before the Court on two motions filed on December 3, 2012 by Prime Financial Inc., namely: (1) the motion entitled "Prime Financial, Inc.'s Motion for Entry of Order Holding Robert Kattula in Contempt for Violation of July 16, 2012 Order Regarding Prime Financial, Inc.'s 'Motion for Reference, [Etc.]'" (Docket # 423, the "Contempt Motion"); and (2) Prime Financial's ex parte motion for expedited hearing on the Contempt Motion (Docket # 424). The Court concludes that a hearing on the Contempt Motion is not necessary. The conduct of Robert Kattula that is alleged in the Motion (sending the email to John Denton) is clearly not a violation of the Court's July 16, 2012 Order, so Robert Kattula cannot be held in contempt for such conduct. As a result,
John Denton is not one of the individuals that Mr. Kattula was prohibited from communicating with, by the July 16 Order. And during the July 16, 2012 hearing that led to the July 16 Order, the Court specifically declined Prime Financial's request to add Mr. Denton to the list of individuals that Mr. Kattula could not contact. See Transcript of July 16, 2012 Hearing (Docket # 343) at 25-26.
IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Contempt Motion (Docket # 423) is denied with prejudice in all respects, except for the part of the relief sought in Part (B) of the Wherefore Clause on page 4 of the Motion (seeking to broaden the July 16 no-contact Order to cover any communication by Kattula with "any employees or members of Waste Path Sanitary Landfill, or Waste Path Service or any affiliated companies.") 2. Prime Financial, Inc.'s request for the relief in Part (B) of the Wherefore Clause of the Contempt Motion is denied without prejudice to Prime Financial Inc.'s right to seek such relief by a separate, new motion. 3. Prime Financial, Inc.'s ex parte motion for expedited hearing on the Contempt Motion (Docket # 424) is denied, as moot.
_________________________
Thomas J. Tucker
United States Bankruptcy Judge