Rule 19.050.Exceptions to and Limitations on Applicable ORCP in Remedial Proceedings

This rule takes the civil track that UTCR 19.040 assigns to remedial contempt and cuts it down. Notwithstanding that routing, the provisions here control in proceedings for remedial sanctions.

Joinder comes first, and it is tight. Unless the court determines that other claims should be joined for fair resolution of the contempt matter, only three kinds may travel with a contempt claim: claims arising out of the order or judgment the contemnor allegedly violated, claims involving facts and issues that would necessarily be determined in the contempt proceeding, and other contempt claims arising out of a related matter. A contempt proceeding is not a place to litigate the rest of the parties' history.

Three adjustments follow. References in the ORCP to a complaint include the initiating instrument in a contempt proceeding, which keeps the borrowed rules readable. The ORCP on juries and jury trials apply only when a statute or constitution gives a specific right to a jury trial in a contempt proceeding and a party claims that right. And a party may amend a pleading only on motion and with the court's approval, so amendment as of right does not survive here.

The rule closes with a list of ORCP that do not apply at all: 3, 5, 21 C, 21 D, 21 E, 23 A, 24 A, 24 B, 25 A, 32, 54 A(1), 54 E, 66, 73, 81 A, 81 C, 82 A(3), 84, and 85. Check that list before relying on a civil procedure rule in a remedial contempt case, because several of the excluded rules are ones a civil litigator would reach for without thinking.