Thanks and I appreciate your response.
I knew his employer based on the lawsuit. However, the injunction did not say if the employer is the same as the one listed in the lawsuit. Hypothetically, Plaintiff might have changed his job therefore, I do not know clearly, definitely and unmistakably who the employer is. The injunction is not sufficiently explicit or precise on this matter. Based on these arguments, is it still a violation if I contact the employer listed in the lawsuit?
Yes. In fact, it would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources if the plaintiff had to get the order amended each time he/she gets a new job.
The caselaw excerpt you reproduced means that your contact would be forgiven only if it's merely a coincidence that the entity you contacted happens to be Plaintiff's employer without you knowing it beforehand. However, direct or circumstantial evidence may prove that your contact was a willful violation rather than just a mere coincidence. If evidence shows that you contacted an entity despite knowing that the entity was Plaintiff's employer, you'll be found in contempt.
In your case, the order is premised on a lawsuit which contains the employer's details and which has been served upon you. Therefore, that is sufficient proof that you knew or should have known that the entity you contact(-ed) is Plaintiff's employer. In the event that Plaintiff got a new job, direct or circumstantial evidence might help ascertaining whether or not you knew or should have known that this other entity is plaintiff's new employer.
Injunctions are not child's play. Trying to overcome a clear injunction entered against you is very likely to backfire.
From what you have told us, while you might have a dubious argument for contacting a subsequent employer, you are permanently barred from contacting that employer. From what you have told us, you should assume that the injunction also applies to future employers.
What is your goal here, if not to resume the bad conduct that resulted in the injunction being entered against you?
Thank you and appreciate.
Is it not the fault of the Court, at the first place, to provide an injunction that is clearly and unambiguosly states who is/are employer(s)?
In addition, how can I know who is his future employer(s)?
If you know what line of work he is in, you can hazard a guess that employers in that field may be employ him. If it is an expansive category, like retail for instance, you can certainly not be expected to never step foot in a store again. But if you are contacting a business that is not his current employer in the ordinary course of doing business and find that he has moved on to them, it is unlikely the court will find you in violation unless it can be shown you approached the company solely because this person works there.
We don’t know exactly what the court order says. We don’t know what it is that you allegedly did that lead to the injunction. But if the order says you cannot contact his employer and does not specify a particular employer, one can reasonably conclude the order means you cannot contact his employer no matter who his employer is. Thus, if you know what person or firm employs him, you’d be barred from making the prohibited contact with that employer.
The fact that you are asking this question suggests that you are looking for a loophole to make contact with someone you know to be his employer, presumably to continue whatever it was that lead to the injunction in the first place. Do that, and you face a very real risk the court will find you in violation of the court order. If that is the situation, why are you so determined to keep this activity up?
Many thanks for your responses.
It is a long list: the court ordered me not to contact him, his employer, family members, etc, etc, etc. My goal is not to to contact his employer or anyone else but to know how an order, which is not clear, definite and unambiguous, can create a court contempt.
For example, in Case No: 8:14-cv-3129-T-30TBM (M.D. Fla. Jun. 7, 2016) METH LAB CLEANUP v SPAULDING DECON, the court stated as follows:
“Because the Court’s holding did not detail explicit parameters on what other iterations of “Meth Lab Cleanup” constitute a “confusingly similar phrase,” any restrictions the Court imposed on the use of the phrase “Meth Lab Cleanup” beyond this exact spelling and capitalization were not clear, definite, and unambiguous.”
If such a minor detail is an excuse to avoid court contempt then why not it is true in my situation?
FYI, I am attaching an other case law:
When a finding of contempt is based upon a violation of a court order, the order must be one which clearly and definitely makes the person aware of its command. Barnes v. State, 588 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); American Pioneer Cas. Ins. Co. v. Henrion, 523 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Moreover, there must be evidence of the accused’s intent to disobey the court’s order, or “that he or she was guilty of such gross dereliction that the intent will be presumed.” Barnes, 588 So. 2d at 1077.