Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	11. Commitments and Contingencies As of March 31, 2019, there has been no material change in any off-balance sheet arrangements since December 31, 2018, except for the operating leases that were recorded on our balance sheet as a result of our adoption of ASC 842 on January 1, 2019. See Notes 2 and 5 above for more information. Legal Proceedings From time to time, we receive claims of and become subject to consumer protection, employment, intellectual property and other litigation related to the conduct of our business. Any such litigation could result in a material amount of legal or related expenses and be time consuming and could divert our management and key personnel from our business operations. In connection with any such litigation, we may be subject to significant damages or equitable remedies relating to the operation of our business. Any such litigation may materially harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. We acquired certain assets of En Pointe Technologies in 2015. The assets were acquired by an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of PCM, which subsidiary now operates under the En Pointe brand (“En Pointe”). We are currently involved in several disputes related to the En Pointe acquisition as described below. Any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process could be costly and time consuming and could divert our management and key personnel from our business operations. In connection with any such matters, we may be subject to significant damages or equitable remedies relating to the operation of our business and could incur significant costs in asserting, defending, or settling any such matters. While we intend to pursue and/or defend these actions vigorously, we cannot determine with any certainty the costs or outcome of such pending or future matters, and they may materially harm our business, results of operations or financial condition. *Delaware Litigation with Collab9.* On December 5, 2016, Collab9, Inc. (formerly, En Pointe Technologies Sales, Inc.) filed an action against PCM, Inc. and its subsidiary, En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC, in the Superior Court of Delaware in New Castle County, Delaware. The action arises out of a March 12, 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) pursuant to which the Company acquired assets of Collab9’s information technology solutions business. Collab9’s complaint alleged that the Company breached the APA by failing to pay Collab9 the full amount of the periodic “earn-out” payments to which Collab9 is entitled under the APA. On March 5, 2018, Collab9 filed a motion for leave to amend its pleadings to add new allegations in support of its earn-out claim and to advance additional theories of recovery. In its Second Amended Complaint, accepted for filing June 20, 2018, Collab9 advanced four counts, or “causes of action,” in which it alleged that the Company (i) failed to include in the earn-out payments a portion of internally delivered services revenue calculated across all consolidated Company businesses rather than the acquired En Pointe business; (ii) transferred accounts and sales persons away from the En Pointe business for the purpose of reducing the earn-out payment calculation; (iii) had an implied duty to maintain a separate financial accounting system for the purpose of tracking earn-out payment calculations; (iv) failed to provide Collab9 with a sublicense to certain SAP software acquired by the Company under the APA; (v) obtained and modified certain data that Collab9 delivered to the Company; and (vi) failed to cooperate with Collab9 to indemnify it in connection with the foregoing claims. Collab9 further asserted breaches of the APA and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that the Company’s certification of earn-out payments was fraudulent. On June 27, 2018, the Company answered, asserted tort and contract counterclaims and third-party claims against the sellers in the Collab9 transaction, and moved to dismiss two of the four counts in the complaint. The counterclaims included allegations that the sellers intentionally breached their representations and warranties concerning the financial statements of the business whose assets the Company acquired under the APA, and the need for minority business certifications which were required for certain acquired contracts under the APA. The counterclaims also include allegations that the sellers failed to disclose related party interests or retained control over Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited (“Ovex”), a third party operation in Pakistan that provided support functions for the acquired business. In response to the Company’s motion, Collab9 filed a Third Amended Complaint on September 10, 2018 for the stated purpose of addressing the Company’s arguments. On October 23, 2018, the Company again moved to dismiss two of the four counts and otherwise answered the complaint, and amended its counterclaims on November 16, 2018. The parties briefed cross-motions to dismiss, and the court has oral argument currently scheduled for May 2019, though it appears the argument may be moved to June 2019. On February 15, 2019, Collab9 filed a companion action against a PCM employee in the same Delaware court, alleging that the employee violated certain contractual duties allegedly owed to Collab9. On April 29, 2019, the PCM employee filed a motion to dismiss the action, which also may be set for argument in June 2019. Although Collab9 has designated it as “related,” the Company is not a party to the companion action but may ultimately indemnify the employee in connection with the defense of this action. The Company believes the claims brought by Collab9 are speculative and wholly without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them. However, the outcome of these matters is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of these matters. *California Litigation with Collab9.* On January 13, 2017, Collab9 filed an action against PCM, Inc. and its subsidiary, En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleged that, in connection with the Company’s processing of transactions with certain customers whose contracts the Company purchased the rights to under the APA following the closing of the APA, the Company, without authorization, accessed and altered electronically stored data of which Collab9 claims to have retained ownership. It further alleged that, although Collab9 authorized the Company to access the data in question during a post-closing transition period, the Company continued to access and alter the data Collab9 claims to own after an alleged termination of such authorization, and, in so doing, violated California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. On February 21, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the APA governs this dispute and contains a provision designating New Castle County, Delaware as the exclusive forum in which claims arising out of or relating to the APA may be brought. Following briefing and oral argument on July 12, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. Collab9 did not include these claims in its Second or Third Amended Complaints in the Delaware Litigation described above, and we do not know whether Collab9 will refile the claims in a Delaware court. The Company believes the claims are wholly without merit, and if pursued by Collab9 in Delaware, the Company intends to vigorously defend against them. *California Litigation Against Yunus, Ovex, Din and Zones.* On February 22, 2017, En Pointe filed an action against former employee Imran Yunus in California Superior Court alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims relating to Mr. Yunus’s departure from his employment at En Pointe to commence employment at a competitor. After discovering new facts about an alleged conspiracy to cause Ovex employees to resign and join a competitor, En Pointe amended the complaint on June 1, 2017 to add Zones, Inc., Ovex and Bob Din as defendants. In its complaint, En Pointe seeks damages against Zones, Yunus, and Din, and injunctive relief against all defendants. The core allegations relate to an alleged scheme orchestrated by defendant Din to conspire with Ovex management to cause Ovex employees to leave Ovex, taking En Pointe’s confidential information and trade secrets, and join competitor Zones. On June 6, 2017, a temporary restraining order was issued by the court in which defendants were ordered, among other things, to immediately provide En Pointe with access to information in their possession and to not use or disclose En Pointe’s trade secrets and confidential information. Ovex partially complied with the order. On July 13, 2017, the court denied En Pointe’s request for a preliminary injunction, without prejudice, and dissolved the temporary restraining order for periods after July 13, 2017 without relieving defendants of their obligations while the temporary restraining order was in effect. The court based its decision primarily upon its determination that, at this stage of the litigation, there lacked sufficient evidence at this time to support the continued need for injunctive relief. In November 2017, En Pointe voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice in order to seek resolution of disputes regarding data ownership and use rights in the pending Delaware Litigation with Collab9 described above. Depending on the outcome of the Delaware case, we may decide to reinstate this action in California. *Pakistan Litigation.* On June 3, 2017, Ovex filed an action in Islamabad Pakistan against PCM’s subsidiary En Pointe, and PCM’s subsidiary in Pakistan, claiming that En Pointe breached a contract pursuant to which Ovex provided En Pointe with back-office administrative support and customer service support. The complaint sought damages, declaratory relief that En Pointe’s termination of services contract should be suspended, and other injunctive relief. On the same date, the court in Pakistan issued a temporary order suspending the termination of the services contract pending a further hearing on the action and indicating that such order will not affect any other order or proceeding of any other competent judicial authority. En Pointe filed applications before the court in Pakistan seeking orders dismissing the injunction and staying the case filed by Ovex seeking damages. En Pointe’s applications were based on its assertion that any matters to be litigated arising out of or in connection with the services contract is subject to a binding and enforceable exclusive arbitration clause in the services contract. On October 10, 2017, the Civil Court in Islamabad Pakistan dismissed the case on grounds of the exclusive venue provision of the contract which requires the case to be litigated in arbitration in California. Ovex appealed the decision of the Civil Court to the High Court in Islamabad. The High Court heard arguments by Ovex on the appeal in early November 2017. The case was temporarily adjourned by request to the High Court by Ovex with the consent of En Pointe, was then refixed for a hearing in August 2018. There was a hearing on March 21, 2019 on the appealed decision of the Civil Court, and the parties are awaiting a ruling. The Company believes the claims by Ovex are speculative and wholly without merit, and continues to vigorously defend the claims on jurisdictional grounds. However, the outcome of this matter in Pakistan is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome in the Pakistan courts. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter. In addition to the action by Ovex against En Pointe in Islamabad, on April 3, 2018, the sole shareholder of Ovex filed an action in Lahore Pakistan purportedly on behalf of Ovex against certain officers and directors of En Pointe, PCM and PCM’s subsidiary in Pakistan claiming that Ovex was harmed as a result of an alleged scheme to drive Ovex employees to leave Ovex and join Pakistan-based direct competitors of PCM and affiliates of PCM. No relief has been sought directly against PCM or any of its subsidiaries in the action. There is currently an argument set on whether to dismiss the case on May 11, 2019. We believe that the claims in this action lack merit and continue to vigorously defend the claims on jurisdictional grounds. On September 11, 2017, July 5, 2018, and again on August 17, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered orders confirming that the pending proceedings in Islamabad and Lahore Pakistan are barred by the arbitration requirements of the applicable service contract between the parties. Despite the orders by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Ovex and its shareholder continue to pursue the litigation in Islamabad and Lahore. *Ovex Arbitration.* On June 6, 2017, En Pointe commenced arbitration against Ovex claiming damages arising from various claimed breaches by Ovex of the services contract between the parties. On July 7, 2017, an emergency arbitrator granted En Pointe some interim relief, including (i) a declaration that the arbitration clause in the services contract is valid and not waived, (ii) that any claim relating to termination of the services contract, or for beach of the contract, or for damages arising out of the services contract must be conducted within the arbitration, and (iii) that the services contract terminates no later than August 18, 2017. A permanent arbitrator for the action was appointed on August 3, 2017 and the arbitrator held an in-person, live, evidentiary hearing on November 28, 2017. On March 9, 2018, the arbitrator in the primary arbitration proceeding entered a partial final award in favor of En Pointe. In the award, the arbitrator found, among other things, that: (1) En Pointe had not breached the service contract and owes nothing to Ovex; (2) Ovex materially breached the service agreement and owes En Pointe $990,586 in actual damages plus attorneys’ fees; and (3) the service agreement was properly terminated by En Pointe with no further obligations to En Pointe. Additional claims and damages against Ovex will be decided in a later phase of the arbitration. *Federal Anti-Suit Injunction Action.* On June 12, 2017, En Pointe filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to compel arbitration in California for claims relating to the services contract with Ovex and for an anti-suit injunction against Ovex. In this action, En Pointe sought an order directing that any claims for damages arising out of the services contract must occur in arbitration, and any attempt to pursue damages in a foreign jurisdiction will be blocked by an anti-suit injunction. On September 11, 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an order compelling arbitration in California and granting the anti-suit injunction as requested in En Pointe’s petition. Ovex and its sole shareholder have continued to litigate in Pakistan in violation of the U.S. District Court’s order. On July 5, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered another order confirming that the pending proceedings in Pakistan are barred by the arbitration requirement and by the Court’s anti-suit injunction and directing Ovex and its shareholder to appear before the Federal Court to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for continuing to litigate in Pakistan in violation of this order. On August 17, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered another order finding each of Ovex and its shareholder in contempt for continuing to litigate in Pakistan.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

11. Commitments and Contingencies

As of March 31, 2019, there has been no material change in any off-balance sheet arrangements since December 31, 2018, except for the operating leases that were recorded on our balance sheet as a result of our adoption of ASC 842 on January 1, 2019. See Notes 2 and 5 above for more information.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we receive claims of and become subject to consumer protection, employment, intellectual property and other litigation related to the conduct of our business. Any such litigation could result in a material amount of legal or related expenses and be time consuming and could divert our management and key personnel from our business operations. In connection with any such litigation, we may be subject to significant damages or equitable remedies relating to the operation of our business. Any such litigation may materially harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We acquired certain assets of En Pointe Technologies in 2015. The assets were acquired by an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of PCM, which subsidiary now operates under the En Pointe brand (“En Pointe”). We are currently involved in several disputes related to the En Pointe acquisition as described below. Any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process could be costly and time consuming and could divert our management and key personnel from our business operations. In connection with any such matters, we may be subject to significant damages or equitable remedies relating to the operation of our business and could incur significant costs in asserting, defending, or settling any such matters. While we intend to pursue and/or defend these actions vigorously, we cannot determine with any certainty the costs or outcome of such pending or future matters, and they may materially harm our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Delaware Litigation with Collab9. On December 5, 2016, Collab9, Inc. (formerly, En Pointe Technologies Sales, Inc.) filed an action against PCM, Inc. and its subsidiary, En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC, in the Superior Court of Delaware in New Castle County, Delaware. The action arises out of a March 12, 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement (“APA”) pursuant to which the Company acquired assets of Collab9’s information technology solutions business. Collab9’s complaint alleged that the Company breached the APA by failing to pay Collab9 the full amount of the periodic “earn-out” payments to which Collab9 is entitled under the APA. On March 5, 2018, Collab9 filed a motion for leave to amend its pleadings to add new allegations in support of its earn-out claim and to advance additional theories of recovery. In its Second Amended Complaint, accepted for filing June 20, 2018, Collab9 advanced four counts, or “causes of action,” in which it alleged that the Company (i) failed to include in the earn-out payments a portion of internally delivered services revenue calculated across all consolidated Company businesses rather than the acquired En Pointe business; (ii) transferred accounts and sales persons away from the En Pointe business for the purpose of reducing the earn-out payment calculation; (iii) had an implied duty to maintain a separate financial accounting system for the purpose of tracking earn-out payment calculations; (iv) failed to provide Collab9 with a sublicense to certain SAP software acquired by the Company under the APA; (v) obtained and modified certain data that Collab9 delivered to the Company; and (vi) failed to cooperate with Collab9 to indemnify it in connection with the foregoing claims. Collab9 further asserted breaches of the APA and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that the Company’s certification of earn-out payments was fraudulent. On June 27, 2018, the Company answered, asserted tort and contract counterclaims and third-party claims against the sellers in the Collab9 transaction, and moved to dismiss two of the four counts in the complaint. The counterclaims included allegations that the sellers intentionally breached their representations and warranties concerning the financial statements of the business whose assets the Company acquired under the APA, and the need for minority business certifications which were required for certain acquired contracts under the APA. The counterclaims also include allegations that the sellers failed to disclose related party interests or retained control over Ovex Technologies (Private) Limited (“Ovex”), a third party operation in Pakistan that provided support functions for the acquired business. In response to the Company’s motion, Collab9 filed a Third Amended Complaint on September 10, 2018 for the stated purpose of addressing the Company’s arguments. On October 23, 2018, the Company again moved to dismiss two of the four counts and otherwise answered the complaint, and amended its counterclaims on November 16, 2018. The parties briefed cross-motions to dismiss, and the court has oral argument currently scheduled for May 2019, though it appears the argument may be moved to June 2019. On February 15, 2019, Collab9 filed a companion action against a PCM employee in the same Delaware court, alleging that the employee violated certain contractual duties allegedly owed to Collab9. On April 29, 2019, the PCM employee filed a motion to dismiss the action, which also may be set for argument in June 2019. Although Collab9 has designated it as “related,” the Company is not a party to the companion action but may ultimately indemnify the employee in connection with the defense of this action. The Company believes the claims brought by Collab9 are speculative and wholly without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them. However, the outcome of these matters is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of these matters.

California Litigation with Collab9. On January 13, 2017, Collab9 filed an action against PCM, Inc. and its subsidiary, En Pointe Technologies Sales, LLC, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleged that, in connection with the Company’s processing of transactions with certain customers whose contracts the Company purchased the rights to under the APA following the closing of the APA, the Company, without authorization, accessed and altered electronically stored data of which Collab9 claims to have retained ownership. It further alleged that, although Collab9 authorized the Company to access the data in question during a post-closing transition period, the Company continued to access and alter the data Collab9 claims to own after an alleged termination of such authorization, and, in so doing, violated California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. On February 21, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the APA governs this dispute and contains a provision designating New Castle County, Delaware as the exclusive forum in which claims arising out of or relating to the APA may be brought. Following briefing and oral argument on July 12, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. Collab9 did not include these claims in its Second or Third Amended Complaints in the Delaware Litigation described above, and we do not know whether Collab9 will refile the claims in a Delaware court. The Company believes the claims are wholly without merit, and if pursued by Collab9 in Delaware, the Company intends to vigorously defend against them.

California Litigation Against Yunus, Ovex, Din and Zones. On February 22, 2017, En Pointe filed an action against former employee Imran Yunus in California Superior Court alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other claims relating to Mr. Yunus’s departure from his employment at En Pointe to commence employment at a competitor. After discovering new facts about an alleged conspiracy to cause Ovex employees to resign and join a competitor, En Pointe amended the complaint on June 1, 2017 to add Zones, Inc., Ovex and Bob Din as defendants. In its complaint, En Pointe seeks damages against Zones, Yunus, and Din, and injunctive relief against all defendants. The core allegations relate to an alleged scheme orchestrated by defendant Din to conspire with Ovex management to cause Ovex employees to leave Ovex, taking En Pointe’s confidential information and trade secrets, and join competitor Zones. On June 6, 2017, a temporary restraining order was issued by the court in which defendants were ordered, among other things, to immediately provide En Pointe with access to information in their possession and to not use or disclose En Pointe’s trade secrets and confidential information. Ovex partially complied with the order. On July 13, 2017, the court denied En Pointe’s request for a preliminary injunction, without prejudice, and dissolved the temporary restraining order for periods after July 13, 2017 without relieving defendants of their obligations while the temporary restraining order was in effect. The court based its decision primarily upon its determination that, at this stage of the litigation, there lacked sufficient evidence at this time to support the continued need for injunctive relief. In November 2017, En Pointe voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice in order to seek resolution of disputes regarding data ownership and use rights in the pending Delaware Litigation with Collab9 described above. Depending on the outcome of the Delaware case, we may decide to reinstate this action in California.

Pakistan Litigation. On June 3, 2017, Ovex filed an action in Islamabad Pakistan against PCM’s subsidiary En Pointe, and PCM’s subsidiary in Pakistan, claiming that En Pointe breached a contract pursuant to which Ovex provided En Pointe with back-office administrative support and customer service support. The complaint sought damages, declaratory relief that En Pointe’s termination of services contract should be suspended, and other injunctive relief. On the same date, the court in Pakistan issued a temporary order suspending the termination of the services contract pending a further hearing on the action and indicating that such order will not affect any other order or proceeding of any other competent judicial authority. En Pointe filed applications before the court in Pakistan seeking orders dismissing the injunction and staying the case filed by Ovex seeking damages. En Pointe’s applications were based on its assertion that any matters to be litigated arising out of or in connection with the services contract is subject to a binding and enforceable exclusive arbitration clause in the services contract. On October 10, 2017, the Civil Court in Islamabad Pakistan dismissed the case on grounds of the exclusive venue provision of the contract which requires the case to be litigated in arbitration in California. Ovex appealed the decision of the Civil Court to the High Court in Islamabad. The High Court heard arguments by Ovex on the appeal in early November 2017. The case was temporarily adjourned by request to the High Court by Ovex with the consent of En Pointe, was then refixed for a hearing in August 2018. There was a hearing on March 21, 2019 on the appealed decision of the Civil Court, and the parties are awaiting a ruling. The Company believes the claims by Ovex are speculative and wholly without merit, and continues to vigorously defend the claims on jurisdictional grounds. However, the outcome of this matter in Pakistan is uncertain and, as a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss that could result in the event of an unfavorable outcome in the Pakistan courts. Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued for any liability that may result from the resolution of this matter. In addition to the action by Ovex against En Pointe in Islamabad, on April 3, 2018, the sole shareholder of Ovex filed an action in Lahore Pakistan purportedly on behalf of Ovex against certain officers and directors of En Pointe, PCM and PCM’s subsidiary in Pakistan claiming that Ovex was harmed as a result of an alleged scheme to drive Ovex employees to leave Ovex and join Pakistan-based direct competitors of PCM and affiliates of PCM. No relief has been sought directly against PCM or any of its subsidiaries in the action. There is currently an argument set on whether to dismiss the case on May 11, 2019. We believe that the claims in this action lack merit and continue to vigorously defend the claims on jurisdictional grounds. On September 11, 2017, July 5, 2018, and again on August 17, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered orders confirming that the pending proceedings in Islamabad and Lahore Pakistan are barred by the arbitration requirements of the applicable service contract between the parties. Despite the orders by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Ovex and its shareholder continue to pursue the litigation in Islamabad and Lahore.

Ovex Arbitration. On June 6, 2017, En Pointe commenced arbitration against Ovex claiming damages arising from various claimed breaches by Ovex of the services contract between the parties. On July 7, 2017, an emergency arbitrator granted En Pointe some interim relief, including (i) a declaration that the arbitration clause in the services contract is valid and not waived, (ii) that any claim relating to termination of the services contract, or for beach of the contract, or for damages arising out of the services contract must be conducted within the arbitration, and (iii) that the services contract terminates no later than August 18, 2017. A permanent arbitrator for the action was appointed on August 3, 2017 and the arbitrator held an in-person, live, evidentiary hearing on November 28, 2017. On March 9, 2018, the arbitrator in the primary arbitration proceeding entered a partial final award in favor of En Pointe. In the award, the arbitrator found, among other things, that: (1) En Pointe had not breached the service contract and owes nothing to Ovex; (2) Ovex materially breached the service agreement and owes En Pointe $990,586 in actual damages plus attorneys’ fees; and (3) the service agreement was properly terminated by En Pointe with no further obligations to En Pointe. Additional claims and damages against Ovex will be decided in a later phase of the arbitration.

Federal Anti-Suit Injunction Action. On June 12, 2017, En Pointe filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to compel arbitration in California for claims relating to the services contract with Ovex and for an anti-suit injunction against Ovex. In this action, En Pointe sought an order directing that any claims for damages arising out of the services contract must occur in arbitration, and any attempt to pursue damages in a foreign jurisdiction will be blocked by an anti-suit injunction. On September 11, 2017, the U.S. District Court issued an order compelling arbitration in California and granting the anti-suit injunction as requested in En Pointe’s petition. Ovex and its sole shareholder have continued to litigate in Pakistan in violation of the U.S. District Court’s order. On July 5, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered another order confirming that the pending proceedings in Pakistan are barred by the arbitration requirement and by the Court’s anti-suit injunction and directing Ovex and its shareholder to appear before the Federal Court to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for continuing to litigate in Pakistan in violation of this order. On August 17, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered another order finding each of Ovex and its shareholder in contempt for continuing to litigate in Pakistan.