Opinion
Argued and Submitted June 15, 2005.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Molly Steele, Esq., Thompson & Knight, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Dan W. Goldfine, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP, George L. Paul, Esq., Susan M. Freeman, Esq., Lewis & Roca, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-01006-FJM.
Before: REAVLEY, T.G. NELSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Lineas A§reas Allegro, S.A. de C.V. ("Allegro") appeals two district court orders. The district court found Allegro to be in contempt for violating an enforcement order and awarded contempt sanctions against it. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.
The district court acted well within its discretion when it found Allegro in contempt. Allegro waived the arguments it
See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir.1992) (stating that we review a court's finding of civil contempt for an abuse of discretion).
Page 644.
brings on appeal by not presenting them to the district court in connection with the contempt proceedings. The fact that Allegro raised arguments about the effect of Mexican law in connection with the enforcement proceedings did not sufficiently raise those arguments to the extent contempt was at issue. Moreover, at the contempt hearing, Allegro conceded that it had not complied with the enforcement order. Therefore, we affirm the district court's contempt finding.
See Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1325 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that a party waived a due process challenge to a contempt finding by not raising it below).
See In re E.R. Fegert, Inc., 887 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir.1989) (stating that an "argument must be raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it").
The district court also acted within its discretion in imposing contempt sanctions. At the contempt hearing, Allegro did not dispute the amount of loss that Pegasus asserted. Accordingly, we affirm the award of contempt sanctions. The district court retains jurisdiction over the liability and damages issues, and may modify or vacate its contempt order on the basis of further evidence or legal argument.
See Richmark, 959 F.2d at 1473 (stating that we review the amount of a court's civil contempt sanction for an abuse of discretion).
AFFIRMED.