Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Parris v. Pappas, 3:10CV1128 (WWE). (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Connecticut Number: infdco20180321a77 Visitors: 29
Filed: Mar. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS , Magistrate Judge . On October 5, 2017, this Court granted plaintiff's renewed Motion for Sanctions and Finding for Contempt and ordered Defendant Charles Pappas to pay $800 a month, no later than the 10th of each month, to Attorney Greg Kirschner, Trustee for Ms. Parris. Defendant will file with the Court under seal a proof of payment together with a sworn and notarized monthly statement of income and expenses, along with a copy of his monthly bank statement. T
More

ORDER

On October 5, 2017, this Court granted plaintiff's renewed Motion for Sanctions and Finding for Contempt and ordered

Defendant Charles Pappas to pay $800 a month, no later than the 10th of each month, to Attorney Greg Kirschner, Trustee for Ms. Parris. Defendant will file with the Court under seal a proof of payment together with a sworn and notarized monthly statement of income and expenses, along with a copy of his monthly bank statement. This submission will be provided by the 15th of each month with a copy to plaintiff's counsel.

[Doc. #312 at 15, affirmed and adopted on Jan. 3, 2018, Doc. #320]. On March 8, 2018, plaintiff filed a Motion for Finding of Contempt, seeking an order finding Pappas in contempt and confining him until such time as Pappas purges his contempt. [Doc. #322]. A telephone conference was held on March 20, 2018. Defendant's counsel sought leave to comply with the reporting requirement. The Court granted defendant leave to file documents required by the Court's ruling, on or before March 30, 2018. After review of the filings, a hearing will be set to permit plaintiff to examine defendant Pappas under oath regarding his income and expenses and his ability to pay, and to hear defendant on why an order of contempt should not enter for defendant's noncompliance with the Court's order of October 5, 2017. Should defendant be found in contempt, the Court will consider appropriate sanctions up to and including incarceration to compel compliance.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer