costs incurred in securing compliance with the order. Dyer, 322 F.3d at 1195 (stating that “attorneys fees are an appropriate component of a civil contempt award”); Portland Feminist, 877 F.2d at 790 (upholding an award of costs incurred litigating the contempt proceeding, including reasonable attorney’s fees, as a remedial sanction); Perry v. O’Donnell, 759 F.2d 702, 705 (9th Cir.1985) (concluding that “an award of fees and expenses is appropriate as a remedial measure”). Where the fine is not compensatory, it is civil only if the contemnor is able to avoid paying the amount imposed by performing the act required by the court’s order. Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 829, 114 S.Ct. 2552; Hicks, 485 U.S. at 632, 108 S.Ct. 1423; Portland Feminist, 877 F.2d at 790; see F.J. Hanshaw, 244 F.3d at 1138 (<HOLDING>). Substantial compliance with the terms of a
holding that an unconditional fine of 500000 was criminal in nature because it was neither intended to be compensatory nor could it be avoided by future compliance holding that neither compensatory nor punitive damages are recoverable under section 17200 holding that the defendants contention was waived because it was supported neither by cogent argument nor citation to authority holding in the alternative that the acf was unenforceable because it was neither attached to nor endorsed on the policy holding that forfeiture is not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment because it involves neither two criminal trials nor two criminal punishments