Lighthouse Masonry, Inc. v. Vision Construction Management, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
LIGHTHOUSE MASONRY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
VISION CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT, INC.; 110 NORTH
MAIN, LLC; 110 NORTH MAIN
MANAGEMENT, LC; ROBERT L.
SHAFFER a/k/a RICK SHAFFER; 110
N MAIN OWNER, LLC; JCM
OPPORTUNITY FUND I, LLC;
JOYAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
LLC; JCM FUND MANAGER, LLC;
JCM INVESTMENT MANAGER, LLC;
GARY F. JOYAL, ABC CORPS 1-10;
JOHN DOE 1-10; JANE DOE 1-10,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 24-339-JJM-PAS
100 N MAIN OWNER,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JCM EDGE BROWN, LLC,
Third-Party Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Lighthouse Masonry, LLC’s Motion for Civil
Contempt 	and 	Coercive 	Sanctions 	against 	Defendants 	Vision 	Construction
Management, Inc., 110 North Main Management, LLC, and Robert P. Shaffer
(“Shaffer Defendants”). ECF No. 115. This motion relates to the Shaffer Defendants’
Case 1:24-cv-00339-JJM-PAS Document 118 Filed 07/08/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
failure to respond to post-judgment discovery that the Court ordered in March 2026.
Because the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate, it grants Lighthouse’s
motion.
Id. A summary of the case is as follows.
The 	Court 	entered 	final 	judgment 	after 	the 	Shaffer 	Defendants
defaulted. 	They filed a notice of appeal on December 18, 2025. 1 	ECF No. 93. 	The
Court entered an Order on March 26, 2026 that required Mr. Shaffer to provide full
and complete responses to Lighthouse’s First Set of Post-Judgment Interrogatories
and First Set of Post-Judgment Requests for Production of Documents on or before
April 10, 2026. ECF No. 106. The Order also required the Shaffer Defendants to post
a $50,000 appeal bond.
Id. Defendants did not comply.
The Shaffer Defendants have offered no excuse for not complying. 	To avoid
civil contempt based on inability to comply, a party bears the burden of showing that
inability.
See United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 757 (1983). Not only have the
Shaffer Defendants made no such showing, but they have also failed to respond to
Lighthouse’s motion for contempt.
Federal courts have the authority to enforce compliance with their orders
through civil contempt.
See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966). To
convince a court that civil contempt is appropriate, the movant must prove that the
non-compliant party violated a clear and unambiguous order by clear and convincing
evidence.
See AccuSoft Corp. v. Palo, 237 F.3d 31, 47 (1st Cir. 2001). A coercive civil
1 The Shaffer Defendants have not obtained a stay of execution or posted a
supersedeas bond. 	Lighthouse therefore is entitled to enforce the judgment during
the appeal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 62(b).
Case 1:24-cv-00339-JJM-PAS Document 118 Filed 07/08/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
contempt sanction is proper where the sanction can be purged by complying with the
Court’s order.
See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821,
828-29 (1994).
Lighthouse seeks an order holding the Shaffer Defendants in civil contempt for
their 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	this 	Court’s 	March 26, 	2026 	Order. 	Specifically,
Lighthouse requests that the Court impose a fine of $1,000 per day, jointly and
severally against the Shaffer Defendants, for each day they remain out of compliance
with the March 26 Order. 	To purge the contempt, Shaffer must provide full and
complete 	responses 	to 	Lighthouse’s 	post-judgment 	discovery, 	and 	the 	Shaffer
Defendants must post the $50,000 appeal bond ordered by this Court. Because the
Court finds that the Shaffer Defendants failed to comply with its March Order, the
Order 	was 	clear 	and 	unambiguous, 	and 	they 	have 	engaged 	in 	a 	pattern 	of
noncompliance throughout this litigation, the Court orders as follows:
1. Mr. Shaffer is held in civil contempt for failing to comply with the March 26,
2026 Order requiring him to provide full and complete responses to Lighthouse’s First
Set of Post Judgment Interrogatories and First Set of Post-Judgment Requests for
Production by the April 10, 2026 deadline;
2. The Shaffer Defendants are held in civil contempt for failing to comply with
the March 26, 2026 Order requiring them to post a $50,000 appeal bond;
3. The Shaffer Defendants shall pay a fine of $1,000 per day, jointly and
severally, for each day they remain out of compliance with the March 26 Order;
Case 1:24-cv-00339-JJM-PAS Document 118 Filed 07/08/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
4. The Shaffer Defendants shall post the $50,000 appeal bond within 48 hours
of the Court’s Order and the $1,000 per day coercive sanction will begin to accrue
thereafter if they fail to do so;
5. The Shaffer Defendants may purge contempt if:
a. 	Mr. 	Shaffer 	serves 	full 	and 	complete 	verified 	responses 	to
Lighthouse’s First Set of Post-Judgment Interrogatories and produces
all documents responsive to Lighthouse’s First Set of Post-Judgment
Requests for Production; and
b. the Shaffer Defendants post the $50,000 appeal bond ordered by the
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
July 8, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00339-JJM-PAS Document 118 Filed 07/08/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>