Vt. Women's Health Ctr. v. Operation Rescue - 159 Vt. 141, 617 A.2d 411 (1992)

Rule:

Vt. R. Civ. P. 65(d) provides that a restraining order or injunction is binding upon the parties to the action and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.

Facts:

In November 1998, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) directed to Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion organization; defendant Michael McHugh; and "all other persons, groups and organizations acting in concert with either Operation Rescue or Michael McHugh," prohibiting the aforementioned persons from blocking entrances to the women's health center. In October 1989, a group led by defendant McHugh of more than fifty persons, physically invaded the grounds and building of the health center. They blocked doorways and exits of the building and positioned a ten-wheel truck to block the driveway. Police officers arrived and informed the defendant protesters that they were in violation of the TRO and that they could leave without being arrested. The defendant protesters ignored the warning and the police arrested them for unlawful trespass and removed them from the building. Plaintiffs subsequently brought a civil contempt action against defendants for violation of the TRO. Following evidentiary hearings, the court found defendants in contempt, held them liable to plaintiffs for certain fees, costs, and damages, and subjected them to prospective coercive fines to be assessed in the event of future violations of the court's order. Defendants appealed, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hold any of them, other than Michael McHugh, in contempt because they were not parties named in the TRO and were not properly served with the order, as required by 12 V.S.A. § 122.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the defendants be held liable in contempt, notwithstanding the fact that they were not parties named in the TRO?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that (1) Vt. R. Civ. P. 65(d) allowed for enforcement of the TRO against those protesters who were not parties to the underlying action where they were in active concert with parties to the underlying action, the TRO was specific and unambiguous, and they violated the TRO with actual knowledge of its mandate. Moreover, the court held that the award of attorney's fees was within the trial court's discretion, and that the imposition of a prospective coercive fine was reasonable where the fine could be avoided by compliance with the TRO and the TRO prohibited clearly defined conduct.