United States of America v. Reinhold V. Sommerstedt

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REINHOLD V. SOMMERSTEDT,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-17563
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00273-RCJ-
GWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reinhold V. Sommerstedt appeals pro se from the district court’s order
holding him in civil contempt for failing to obey its orders requiring him to file a
certification of compliance stating that he notified customers of the underlying
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17563 2
summary judgment and injunction against him. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a civil contempt order. Irwin
v. Mascott, 370 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found Sommerstedt in
contempt for his failure to comply with its orders requiring him to file a
certification stating his compliance with the underlying injunction’s customer
notification requirement. See id. (person subject to injunction generally may not
contest its lawfulness by disobeying it).
Under the law of the case doctrine, we do not consider Sommerstedt’s
challenges to the district court’s underlying summary judgment for the United
States or to the resulting injunction’s customer notification requirement. See Leslie
Salt Co. v. United States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Under law of the
case doctrine, . . . one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider matters
resolved in a prior appeal to another panel in the same case.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --