motion for continuation of the contempt proceedings, alleging that
DIBC was continuing to violate the trial court’s February 1, 2010,
order. The trial court issued a show-cause order, directed at Stamper
and DIBC, to appear and explain why DIBC should not be held in civil
contempt. Following further hearings on the matter, on November 3,
2011, the trial court issued an opinion and order holding that DIBC
was, again, in civil contempt for failing to comply with the February
1, 2010, order. The court listed several options it was considering to
coerce compliance and directed that “the top company officer for
DIBC” and Manuel J. Moroun, a director of DIBC and its owner,
DIBC Holdings, Inc., appear before the court on January 12, 2012, to
address the sanctions issue. On that date, after discussing several
options for sanctions, the Court stated that DIBC was best equipped
to complete the project and that the key decision-makers, whom the
court identified as Stamper, Moroun, and Moroun’s son (the vice
president of DIBC), had the responsibility to ensure DIBC’s compli-
ance. The court ordered that Moroun and Stamper be incarcerated
until DIBC “fully complied” with the trial court’s February 1, 2010,
order or until they no longer had the power to comply with it. Moroun
and Stamper appealed and moved for release pending appeal. The
Court of Appeals denied the motion for release pending appeal.
Stamper and Moroun then moved for peremptory reversal and a stay.
The Court of Appeals denied the motion for peremptory reversal but
granted, in part, the motion for stay, releasing Stamper and Moroun
pending further order of the Court.
In a lead opinion by K. F. K
ELLY
, J., and separate opinions by
W
ILDER
,P.J., and F
ORT
H
OOD
, J., the Court of Appeals held:
1. An order finding a party in civil contempt of court is not a
final order for purposes of appellate review by right. However, the
right of a nonparty to appeal an adjudication of contempt cannot
be questioned even in the absence of a final order. The same
principle applies to individuals not personally held in contempt but
sanctioned as decision-makers to enforce a company’s compliance
with a court order. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals had jurisdic-
tion to hear Stamper and Moroun’s appeal as an appeal by right.
2. Individuals who are officially responsible for the conduct of
a corporation’s affairs are required to obey a court order directed
at the corporation, and they may be sanctioned if they fail to take
appropriate action within their power to ensure that the corpora-
tion complies with the court order. Accordingly, Stamper and
Moroun could be held accountable for failing to ensure DIBC’s
compliance with the trial court’s order.
3. A civil contempt proceeding requires only rudimentary due
process. In other words, it requires notice and an opportunity to be
2012] In re M
OROUN
313