United States of America v. Summit, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued November 4, 2025
Decided November 17, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1646
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SUMMIT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division.
No. 2:19-cv-00250-HAB-JPK
Joshua P. Kolar,
Circuit Judge.∗
O R D E R
The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) fined Summit, Inc. in 2014 for
violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et
seq. Summit stipulated to the facts and allegations in the administrative complaint and
agreed to pay the full civil penalty, resulting in a mutually executed Consent
∗ Of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1646 Page 2
Agreement and Final Order in 2016. But Summit did not pay the financial penalty in
that Agreement and Order. In 2019, the government filed a complaint in federal district
court, resulting in a June 2022 default judgment ordering Summit to pay $350,954.27.
This sum represented the amount agreed upon in the Agreement and Order, plus
interest. Again, Summit did not pay this amount.
The government moved for contempt in 2024. The district court conducted two
hearings and scheduled a status conference for March 14, 2025. At some point before
that status conference, the parties negotiated a payment schedule based on the
judgment. The United States submitted that schedule without objection at the status
conference, labeled as “Ex. 1 (Proposed Payment Schedule for the Judgment in United
States v. Summit Inc, 2:19CV250).” The text order from the status conference notes,
“Parties indicate they have reached an agreement as to schedule of payments.” Dkt. 95.
At the status conference, the district court found Summit in contempt when it
learned that Summit still had not made a payment on the judgment. The court also
imposed an interim contempt sanction, requiring Summit to comply with additional
RCRA requirements that, given unresolved disputes of fact in the underlying litigation,
may or may not apply to Summit on the merits. This interim sanction was to remain in
effect until the money judgment is paid in full. Summit appeals.
At oral argument before us, Summit represented that the arrangement between
the parties called for payments of $11,000 per month over three years. The first payment
was not due until April 1, 2025, a few weeks after Summit was found in contempt.
Summit stated further that it had successfully paid each monthly installment under the
payment plan to date. The government also sends a monthly reminder to Summit about
its obligations under the agreement and accepts payment each month. Oral Argument
at 11:43–12:43. Finally, Summit explained that, if the government refused to keep
accepting payments under the plan, Summit would move to enforce the payment
schedule as a valid contract. Oral Argument at 25:17–26:44.
The government partially conceded this arrangement at oral argument, agreeing
that these were the terms of the payment plan and acknowledging that Summit had
paid each monthly installment beginning in April 2025. The government submitted,
however, that its agreement to the unsigned arrangement was contingent on Summit
providing documentation that $11,000 per month was the most it could pay. Summit
had not done so, the government contended. After reviewing documents on this topic
from Summit, the government’s financial analyst concluded that Summit could afford

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1646 Page 3
to pay the full lump sum immediately, or at least more than $11,000 a month. For this
reason, the government argued to us that no valid payment agreement exists, even
though payment reminders continue to be sent and the government accepts monthly
payments from Summit. Oral Argument at 13:17–15:58.
This appeal presents the question whether courts may enforce money judgments
through their contempt power. Yet, we need not resolve that question here. The parties
told us during oral argument that they had negotiated a payment schedule pursuant to
the money judgment; Summit has paid installments under that schedule; the
government sends payment reminders and accepts Summit’s payments; and this
continues on a monthly basis. So, the circumstances that led to the district court’s
contempt finding are no longer present.
In light of these developments, we VACATE the contempt finding and related
interim sanction, and we REMAND this case to the district court to determine if the
payment schedule is a valid and enforceable agreement. If it is, the parties shall proceed
as they have since April 1, 2025 under the payment schedule’s terms for the remainder
of the three years until the June 2022 judgment is paid in full. If Summit fails to make
timely payments or otherwise breaches, or if the district court decides that the payment
schedule is not valid and enforceable, then the government may immediately proceed
with a writ of execution to enforce the remainder of the money judgment.
SO ORDERED.

-- 3 of 3 --