United States District Court, D. Hawaii
In re ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION,
Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Hilao, et al. and DeVera, et al.
Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos.
ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF JUDGMENT
ON CONTEMPT, AND (2) EXTENDING JUDGMENT ON CONTEMPT
DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
23, 2019, Plaintiff Class of Human Rights Victims (Plaintiff
Class) filed a Motion for Extension of Judgment on Contempt
(Motion) that has since been opposed by Defendant Estate of
Ferdinand E. Marcos (Defendant) and its representatives,
Imelda R. Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos. Because Plaintiff
Class has moved for an extension of the Judgment on Contempt
prior to the expiration of said judgment and shown good cause
for doing so, and because Defendant fails to provide an
adequate reason for not extending the same, the Motion is
GRANTED, and the Judgment on Contempt is EXTENDED, pursuant
to Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 657-5, until January 25, 2031-20
years after the original entry of said judgment.
federal litigation against Defendant began in the 1980's.
Understandably, therefore, the procedural history of said
litigation is long. For purposes of the present Motion,
however, much of that procedural history need not be
recounted. Instead, the Court begins its brief summary with
the Judgment on Contempt.
Judgment on Contempt was entered on January 25, 2011. Dkt.
No. 10665. In relevant part, the Judgment on Contempt
provided as follows:
3. The sanction [of $100, 000.00 per day] was for violation
of this Court's preliminary and permanent injunction, the
latter of which was entered as part of the Judgment Order of
February 3, 1995. The sanction ceased running ten years later
when enforcement of the Judgment Order expired on February 3,
2005 pursuant to H.R.S. Sec. 657-5.
4. A total of 3, 536 days elapsed during which the contemnors
remained in contempt of the permanent injunction and did not
purge their contempt or seek to reduce the sanction.
5. Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff Class and
against Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos and the Estate
of Ferdinand E. Marcos, jointly and severally, in the amount
of $353, 600, 000.00.
6. The judgment is entered personally against Imelda R.
Marcos and Ferdinand R. Marcos. Since they served as
executors of the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos and their
contemptuous acts were on behalf of the Estate, the Estate is
in privity with them and subject to the judgment herein.
7. The judgment is compensatory and in favor of the Plaintiff
Class since the Class has been prevented from collecting on
its original judgment (and judgments registered in other
states) in an amount well in excess of the amount of this
appealed the Judgment on Contempt, and, on October 24, 2012,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Dkt. No. 10690.
On appeal, Defendant argued that, “because the
underlying damages judgment expired in 2005 and because the
$100, 000 per day contempt sanction upon which the contempt
judgment was based was coercive in nature, the contempt
judgment is unenforceable.” Id. at 2. The
Ninth Circuit, first, observed that Defendant's argument
was “likely waived” because Defendant did not
sufficiently raise it before the district court. Id.
at 2-3. Independent of waiver, the Ninth Circuit also
rejected the argument on the merits. Id. at 3-4.
Specifically, the Ninth Circuit explained that, even if the
contempt sanction was coercive, it was also
“clearly” compensatory. Id. at 3.
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
treating the entirety of the sanction as compensatory because
no party had asked the court to allocate the daily sanction
amount between compensatory and coercive components.
Id. at 4.
23, 2019, the Plaintiff Class filed the instant Motion for
Extension of Judgment on Contempt. Dkt. No. 10741. Defendant,
Imelda R. Marcos, and Ferdinand R. Marcos have filed an
opposition to the Motion, Dkt. No. 10743, and Plaintiff Class
has filed a reply, Dkt. No. 10744. With briefing now
complete, the Court makes the following ruling.
Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) provides that the procedure on
execution of a judgment “must accord with the procedure
of the state where the court is located….” In
Hawai‘i, the applicable procedure of the state can be
found in ...