The plaintiff employer brought a motion seeking a declaration that its former employee was in civil contempt of a consent order prohibiting solicitation of certain clients.
The alleged breach was based on an affidavit recounting statements and an email from a third‑party client asserting that the defendant had contacted the client and obtained an order.
The defendant denied solicitation and filed responding affidavit evidence explaining that the contact related to compensation for defective furniture supplied by his new employer.
The court held that the moving party’s evidence consisted entirely of hearsay concerning contested facts and therefore breached Rule 60.11(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing contempt motions.
Because contempt is quasi‑criminal and requires strict procedural compliance and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the hearsay evidence was inadmissible and there was no admissible evidence to support the allegation.
