Chesapeake Bank v. Stuart D. Berger; Deborah D. Berger

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1667
CHESAPEAKE BANK,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STUART D. BERGER; DEBORAH D. BERGER,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
BERGER PROPERTIES OF OHIO, LLC; BERGER PROPERTIES OF
FLORIDA, LLC; BERGER PROPERTIES OF TEXAS, LLC; BERGER
PROPERTIES OF MARYLAND, LLC; S & D UNLIMITED OF TEXAS, LLC;
S & D UNLIMITED, LLC; THE UNLIMITED GROUP, INC.; LAW OFFICES
OF STUART BERGER, PLLC,
Defendants
KEITH M. NORTHERN; ROBERT B. SMITH
Receiver.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:14-cv-00066-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: October 29, 2015 Decided: November 10, 2015
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Stuart D. Berger, Deborah D. Berger, Appellants Pro Se.
Augustus Charles Epps, Jr., Harrison Mann Gates, Rowland Braxton
Hill, IV, Belinda Duke Jones, Michael David Mueller, CHRISTIAN &
BARTON, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Stuart Berger and Deborah Berger appeal from the district
court’s order imposing contempt fines and its subsequent order
denying in part their motion for reconsideration. The Bergers
contend that the nature of the contempt was criminal rather than
civil. We conclude that the contempt was civil. The imposition
of the per diem fine was plainly designed to coerce the Bergers’
compliance with the court’s preliminary injunction, consistent
with one of the primary aims of civil contempt. See Int’l
Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827-
29 (1994).
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545
(1949). Because the contempt is civil in nature, we lack
jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal. See Consol.
Coal Co. v. Local 1702, United Mineworkers of Am., 683 F.2d 827,
830 n.3 (4th Cir. 1982) (“[A] civil contempt proceeding is in
effect a continuance of the main action and therefore a party to
a suit may not review upon appeal an order fining or imprisoning
him for civil contempt except in connection with appeal from a
final judgment of the main claim.”). Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral

-- 3 of 4 --

4
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --