Case 2:18-cv-01877-AB Document 44 Filed 10/17/19 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THRIVEST SPECIALTY FUNDING,
LLC
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
WILLIAM E. WHITE,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION
No. 18-1877

EXPLANATION AND ORDER
AND NOW, this __17TH ___ day of October, 2019, for the reasons that follow, the Court
holds Defendant William E. White in CONTEMPT of the Court’s July 1, 2019 Order (ECF No.
25) (“Escrow Order”) confirming the Emergency Arbitrator’s Interim Award directing White to
escrow $1,250,000 pending resolution of arbitration, and imposes the civil contempt sanctions
listed in paragraph 5 below:
1.

A civil contempt order may issue if the district court finds that (1) “a valid order

of the court existed,” (2) “the defendant[] had knowledge of the order,” and (3) “the defendant[]
disobeyed that order.” Marshak v. Treadwell, 595 F.3d 478, 485 (3d Cir. 2009) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). The party moving for contempt sanctions must prove each
element by “clear and convincing evidence, and ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the
party charged with contempt.” John T. ex rel. Paul T. v. Delaware Cnty. Intermediate Unit, 318
F.3d 545, 552 (3d Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
2.

Thrivest has satisfied this burden. First, the Court’s Escrow Order is valid.1

Further, White does not dispute that he had knowledge of the Escrow Order. Finally, White does
not dispute that he has not escrowed the funds.

White appealed the Court’s Escrow Order, and on October 8, 2019, the Third Circuit summarily
affirmed it. See Order, Thrivest Specialty Funding v. William White, No. 19-2771 (3d Cir. Oct. 8, 2019).
1

1

 Case 2:18-cv-01877-AB Document 44 Filed 10/17/19 Page 2 of 4

3.

Once a prima facie showing of contempt is made, the charged party may raise a

defense that it is unable to comply with the order. 11A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R.
MILLER, ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2960 (3d ed. 2019). White argues that he is
financially unable to comply with the Court’s Escrow Order. The relevant focus of this defense
is “present inability to comply with the order in question.” United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S.
752, 757 (1983) (citations omitted). Courts “will not be blind to evidence that compliance is
now factually impossible. Where compliance is impossible, neither the moving party nor the
court has any reason to proceed with the civil contempt action. It is settled, however, that in
raising this defense, the [alleged contemnor] has a burden of production.” Id. That burden
requires “evidence beyond a mere assertion of inability.” Harris v. City of Philadelphia, 47 F.3d
1311, 1324 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, the
“contemnor must show categorically and in detail why he is unable to comply,” and “unless [the
party claiming financial inability] is completely impoverished, he must comply to the extent that
his finances permit.” United States v. Baker Funeral Home, Ltd., 196 F. Supp. 3d 530, 554 (E.D.
Pa. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
4.

Despite multiple chances to do so, White has not satisfied his burden of proving

inability to comply. White has offered only nine heavily redacted pages of bank statements for
an unidentified account, covering a period from June 21, 2019 to August 20, 2019, showing that
the account had a balance of $487.48 as of August 20, 2019. ECF No. 42-1. Because the
statements go only to August 20, 2019, White has not presented an up-to-date picture of his
present inability to comply. Rylander, 460 U.S. at 757. Further, aside from the fact that the
statements bear his name, White has not offered any sworn declaration or other proof
authenticating that the statements accurately portray an account that belongs to him. Finally,

2

 Case 2:18-cv-01877-AB Document 44 Filed 10/17/19 Page 3 of 4

White also offers no proof—or even any assertion—that the account reflected in the statements
contains all of his current assets. In short, White’s submission is far too incomplete to “show
categorically and in detail why he is unable to comply.” Baker Funeral Home, 196 F. Supp. 3d
at 554.
5.

Accordingly, the Court holds White in contempt of the Court’s Escrow Order and

imposes the following civil contempt sanctions:
a. Unless and until White complies with the Escrow Order or submits adequate
proof of his inability to comply, any bank, financial institution, or brokerage
institution, or other person or entity holding any funds, securities, or other
assets in the name of, for the benefit of, or under the direct or indirect control
of White, must prohibit the withdrawal, removal, transfer, or other disposal of
those funds, assets, or securities. This sanction, however, will not apply to
any withdrawal, removal, transfer, or other disposal of funds necessary to
allow White to make medical expenditures.
b. Unless and until White complies with the Escrow Order or submits adequate
proof of his inability to comply, White is prohibited from making any nonmedical expenditures in excess of $500 without Court approval.
c. Plaintiff Thrivest may serve this Order on any financial institutions, banks,
persons, or other entities mentioned in paragraph 5(a).
d. The Court may impose further sanctions if White persists in his failure to
either comply with the Escrow Order or prove his inability to comply. On
October 31, 2019, at no later than 2:00pm EST, Thrivest must submit a
status report updating the Court on White’s compliance.

3

 Case 2:18-cv-01877-AB Document 44 Filed 10/17/19 Page 4 of 4

s/Anita B. Brody
_________________________
ANITA B. BRODY, J.

COPIES VIA ECF 10/17/2019

4