Share and Follow
Mike Lindell listens during an interview from the podium in the press briefing room of the White House, Friday, Feb. 21, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell is refusing to pay a court-ordered debt, according to a Wednesday filing in Washington, D.C., federal court.
Now, voting software company Smartmatic wants the bedding magnate held in civil contempt “for violating the clear and unambiguous terms” of a January court order that put Lindell on the hook for $56,369 over frivolous claims he made in a failed lawsuit.
In the case, the underlying lawsuit was filed by Dominion Voting Systems, accusing Lindell and MyPillow of slander over false claims about the 2020 election. Lindell later sued both voting companies for myriad claims and lost. Smartmatic, in turn, moved for sanctions.
While the court sided with Smartmatic on that question in 2022, it was not until the company prodded late last year for their award that the dollar amount was finally decided upon. On Jan. 13, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, substantially pared down Lindell’s liability and ordered him to pay.
Roughly two months passed. Still, Smartmatic says Lindell is continuing to evade his responsibilities in the dispute he started.
“Smartmatic was improperly made a party to this Action by Mr. Lindell in December 2021,” the motion for civil contempt reads. “Shortly thereafter, Smartmatic was dismissed and the Court found that sanctions were appropriate for at least some of the claims Lindell had asserted. Now, nearly three full years after that ruling, Smartmatic continues to wait to be made whole. Despite the Court’s clear and unambiguous ruling earlier this year that Lindell compensate Smartmatic for the fees it spent litigating Lindell’s frivolous claims, Lindell still has not paid, nor has he meaningfully engaged in any discussions or negotiations regarding the terms of payment.”
Despite the court’s order directing Lindell to pay Smartmatic, the stalwart Trump ally only once made a suggestion on how to resolve the lingering payment issue on Feb. 5, according to the fling.
“Lindell requested through counsel that the proposed agreement be modified to require payments of $5,000 per month as opposed to a lump sum payment of the entire sanctions award,” the motion goes on. “Lindell did not provide any rationale, documentation or supporting evidence to Smartmatic evidencing a present inability to pay the ordered sum at one time. Lindell did not otherwise have any edits to the proposed agreement.”
Under the terms of the order, Smartmatic is not allowed to take full custody of the sanctions award. Rather, the company must keep the funds in escrow “[p]ending final judgment and a potential appeal as to Lindell’s counterclaims.”
On Feb. 21, Smartmatic rejected the installment offer.
Instead, the company responded with a finalized escrow agreement.
“Smartmatic conveyed its understanding that Lindell did not dispute the actual terms of the Escrow Agreement, but was otherwise refusing to execute the Agreement and pay the sanctions award,” the contempt motion continues. “On February 26, 2025, Smartmatic requested that Lindell inform it by February 28, 2025 whether he would execute the Agreement and pay the sanctions award.”
Since that late February request, however, the company has allegedly not heard from Lindell at all, the filing claims.
“As of March 12, 2025, Mr. Lindell has neither executed the Escrow Agreement, offered suggested revisions to the Escrow Agreement, nor paid the sanctions ordered by this Court,” the motion reads.
In pushing for civil contempt, Smartmatic cites federal precedent that provides a three-pronged rule for such a finding.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
In order to prove contempt in the federal district, a moving party must show there was a clear and unambiguous court order, that the order required a party to do something, and that the party in question did not do what was ordered.
Smartmatic says this case is an easy call — and that Lindell has not even tried to offer any kind of mitigating information.
From the motion, at length:
Here, each of the three elements for a finding of civil contempt indisputably exist …
Moreover, there is no dispute that Lindell has failed to comply with the Court’s Order. Despite several months of attempts, Lindell has not engaged with the exercise of negotiating the Escrow Agreement beyond his initial refusal to pay the full amount owed. What’s more, once Smartmatic finalized the Agreement, Lindell neither responded nor paid any amounts into escrow.
To the extent Lindell is claiming an “inability to pay,” he has not demonstrated any such inability beyond statements or conclusions offered to the media. Indeed, even if it were obligated to do so (it is not), Smartmatic is currently unable to assess any such ability or inability as Lindell has refused to produce his personal financial information in a separate case between Lindell and Smartmatic pending before the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, which refusal itself led to the Minnesota District Court holding Lindell in contempt.
Earlier this month, a federal court in Minnesota found Lindell in contempt in an altogether different lawsuit between the voting software company and the once-lucrative pillow manufacturer.
Law&Crime reached out to Lindell for comment on this story but no response was immediately forthcoming at the time of publication.
