United States District Court, D. Nevada
SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION and SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., Plaintiffs,
ACE WHOLESALE, INC, JASON FLOAREA, ERIC MANDREGER, DOMINICK LANORE, TONY ARCHIE, JOSE GENEL, BARNEY GUNN, COPATRADE, INC., and MOSHE ALEZRA, Defendants. Related to Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-2902-JEC
HONORABLE RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
matter having come before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion
for Attorneys' Fees and Costs pursuant to the Court's
June 23, 2016 Order [DE 35] and having reviewed the foregoing
and having determined that (1) Digitek Telecom, (2) Sol
Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., (3) World Mobile Co., (4) Ali Sadaqa
Trading LLC, (5) J2 International Ltd., and (6) New Way
International Ltd. (collectively, “Third
Parties”) had notice of the subpoenas, notice of
Sprint's Motion to Compel enforcement of the subpoenas,
and notice of the July 2, 2015 show cause hearing, and being
otherwise duly advised on the merits, it is hereby, ORDERED
and ADJUDGED that:
Plaintiffs' Subpoenas Duces Tecum to Produce Documents,
Information, or Objects and to Testify at a Deposition in a
Civil Action (“Subpoenas”) were valid and
properly issued and served.
Third Parties knowingly failed to comply with the Subpoenas
and provided no justification for their failure, knowingly
failed to appear at the July 2, 2015 show cause hearing and
knowingly failed to bring to the hearing all documents in
their possession, custody or control which are responsive to
June 23, 2016, this Court hereby accepted and adopted in full
the Report and Recommendation ECF No. 32 regarding (ECF No.
20) Order to Show Cause, found the Third Parties in civil
contempt, ordered the Third Parties to pay Sprint's
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and instructed
Sprint to file a motion specifying the amount of
attorney's fees and costs it seeks.
Court has reviewed Sprint's Motion and finds the rates,
fees and amount of time spent in connection with this matter
reasonable. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs'
request for $34, 991.65 in attorneys' fees and costs is
Court finds Digitek Telecom, its principal, Gopal Agarwal,
Sol Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., its principal, Avinash Gandhi, Ali
Sadaqa Trading LC, its principal, Amin Ali, New Way
International Ltd., its principal, Nigel Prince, World Mobile
Co., its principal, Shirley Li, J2 International Ltd., and
its principal Jacky Xie., joint and severally liable for this
amount and directs them to pay Plaintiffs' attorneys $34,
991.65 by April 3, 2017 . See, e.g., Warehouse
Restaurant, Inc. v. Customs House Restaurant, Inc., No.
80-3054, 1982 WL 63800, at * 3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 1982)
(“a corporation can only act through its agents and
employees;” court held that the corporate defendant was
acting through its principal who therefore committed
“the acts on which this court bases its award of
attorneys' fees” and held them jointly and
severally liable for payment of same); Exportaciones
Textiles, S.A. De C.V. v. Orange Clothing Co., No.
09-22967, 2011 WL 3293388, at * 1-2 (S.D. Fl. Aug. 1, 2011)
(court awarded plaintiff sanctions in the form of
attorneys' fees for defendant's discovery abuses,
jointly and severally against the defendant, its non-party
corporate principal and its attorney).
Third Parties are hereby ordered to produce by April 3, 2017,
all documents responsive to Plaintiffs' request for
documents as set forth in Exhibit B to the Subpoenas to
Plaintiffs' counsel, without any objections as those have
Third Parties must designate one or more officers, directors,
managing agents or other persons knowledgeable of the subject
areas described in Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Subpoenas and
are ordered to appear for deposition at Veritext Legal
Solutions, Sahara Rancho Office Center, 2250 S. Rancho Drive,
Suite 195, Las Vegas, NV 89102 at a date and time agreeable
to Plaintiffs' counsel, but in any event no later than
March8, 2017., . Third Parties must contact Plaintiffs'
counsel no later than March 15, 2017, to confirm their
attendance at the deposition. If Third Parties fail to
confirm their attendance by March16, 2017, Plaintiffs are
ordered to notify the Court regarding their failure and the
Court will issue appropriate sanctions. Rocha v.
Florez, No. 14-51, 2014 WL 852623, at * 2 (D. Nev. Mar.
4, 2014); U.S. v. Parker, No. 08-1200, 2012 WL
504031, at * 3 (D. Nev. Feb. 15, 2012) (after defendant's
repeated failure to comply with court orders and appear for
hearings, the court held that “the present civil
contempt sanctions are not sufficiently coercive. Thus, this
court recommends that the district judge impose sanctions in
the form of incarceration, whereby the defendant may purge
himself by complying with the court's orders and
providing answers to the interrogatories.”);
Cordius Trust v. Kummerfeld Associates, Inc., 658
F.Supp.2d 512, 524 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“Arrest is an
appropriate coercive sanction for civil contempt, so long as
its purpose is not punitive but is instead to compel the
contemnor to perform the required act.”).
SHOULD ANY OF THE THIRD PARTIES AND/OR PRINCIPALS FAIL TO
COMPLY WITH THE OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDER, THEY
SHALL BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER SANCTIONS FROM THIS COURT, WHICH
MONETARY PENALTIES ACCRUING FOR EACH DAY OF NONCOMPLIANCE,
AND, IF THE NONCOMPLIANCE IS SHOWN TO BE WILLFUL, MAY INCLUDE
THE ISSUANCE OF AN ARREST WARRANT FOR THE NONCOMPLIANT
PRINCIPALS UNTIL THEY TAKE ACTION TO PURGE THE CONTEMPT
IDENTIFIED IN THIS COURT'S PREVIOUS ORDERS.
Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a notice with the Court no
later than A p ril 4, 2017., to address whether Third ...