Faizi v. Temori

Background

Ahmad Mukhtar Faizi previously filed a second motion seeking an order holding defendants Baktash Temori, Masoud Rustakhis, Falafel Flame Hayward, Falafel Flame Sunnyvale, Falafel Flame San Jose, and Falafel Flame Upland in contempt. The motion concerned orders based on a Lanham Act claim that Faizi asserted on behalf of Falafel Flame, Inc. He requested, among other relief, attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing that motion.

In its earlier order, the court found that the defendants had not complied with its orders, that the violations were more than technical or minor, and that the defendants’ conduct was not based on a good-faith and reasonable interpretation of the orders. The court also found that the defendants had not shown they were unable to comply. The court deferred ruling on the fee request. In a later report concerning entry of judgment, Faizi asked the court to rule on those fees.

Ruling on Fees and Costs

The court held that an award of attorneys’ fees for civil contempt is within the district court’s discretion. Because Faizi, on behalf of Falafel Flame, had successfully established a basis for a contempt order, the court found that Falafel Flame may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with the second contempt motion. The court did not determine the amount in this order.

The court ordered Faizi’s counsel to submit an application documenting the requested reasonable fees and costs, including declarations, time records, or other materials needed to evaluate the hourly rates and work performed. The defendants may respond only to the amount requested. Faizi may file a reply, and the parties may instead submit a stipulation agreeing on an amount. Unless the court orders otherwise, the fee matter will be decided on the written submissions without another hearing.

Separate Request for Judgment

To the extent Faizi sought judgment based on sums that the court had ordered Temori and Rustakhis to pay to the clerk, the court denied that request. The court explained that those sums were intended to address the defendants’ then-continuing noncompliance with earlier orders based on the Lanham Act claim. The parties later stipulated to dismissal of that claim against all defendants except those against whom default judgment had been entered. The court also stated that Faizi had not established a basis for the requested judgment.

Disposition

The court granted the request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs related to the second contempt motion, subject to further proceedings to determine the amount. It denied the request for judgment based on the sums ordered paid to the clerk. Although the clerk was directed to close the file because judgment had otherwise been entered, the court stated that closure would not prevent the parties from briefing the fee request and that the judgment could be amended as appropriate to include any fees and costs awarded to Falafel Flame.