United States of America v. TOBY CARL McADAM, DBA Risingsun Health

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOBY CARL McADAM, DBA Risingsun
Health,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
GRETA S. ARMSTRONG, DBA
Risingsun Health,
Defendant.
No. 13-36201
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00128-SEH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Toby Carl McAdam, dba Risingsun Health, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order holding him in civil contempt and awarding liquidated damages and
attorney’s fees to the United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for an abuse of discretion a civil contempt order, and review for clear
error underlying factual findings. FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228,
1239 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found McAdam in
contempt for failing to comply with the terms of a negotiated consent decree. See
Irwin v. Mascott, 370 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2004) (person subject to injunction
generally may not contest its lawfulness by disobeying it).
The district court awarded liquidated damages to the United States under the
terms of the consent decree, which provided for liquidated damages not to exceed
$80,000 in any calendar year for failure to comply. The district court did not abuse
its discretion by using an amount negotiated by the parties as compensation for
McAdam’s continued contemptuous conduct. See SEC v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123,
1128 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and noting that “[d]istrict
courts have broad equitable power to order appropriate relief in civil contempt
proceedings”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees as
13-36201 2

-- 2 of 3 --

part of its contempt order. See Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 946 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review).
We reject McAdam’s contentions concerning denial of due process,
violation of the Confrontation Clause, and violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The district court afforded McAdam due process by providing notice and an
opportunity to be heard on the contempt claim. See United States v. Ayres, 166
F.3d 991, 995 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[C]ivil contempt may be imposed in an ordinary
civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial
nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
McAdam’s opposed motion for a stay pending appeal, filed on November 3,
2014, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
13-36201 3

-- 3 of 3 --