Victory Lane Quick Oil Change Inc. v. Darwich et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting 30 Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VICTORY LANE QUICK OIL CHANGE,
INC., a Michigan corporation,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 11-11786
v.
MAGID DARWICH, an individual, BELAL
DARWICH, an individual, DARWICH
BROTHERS, L.L.C., a Michigan limited
liability company, and MAZH, L.L.C., a
Michigan limited liability company,

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

Defendants.
________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER
This matter came before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to enforce preliminary injunction
order, filed July 24, 2011. Defendants filed a response on August 4, 2011; Plaintiff submitted a
reply brief on August 8, 2011. The court heard oral argument on August 11, 2011.
On June 29, 2011, the court entered an opinion and order finding that Plaintiff Victory
Lane was entitled to a preliminary injunction on its non-compete and Lanham Act claims. The
court entered a preliminary injunction order on July 20, 2011, enjoining Defendants from
operating a quick oil change business at 211 W. Michigan Ave., Saline, Michigan, while
Darwich Brothers or Magid Darwich is a tenant at that location. The court further enjoined
Defendants from displaying the current “Saline Quick Lube” logo or a materially similar logo.
Despite the court’s order, Defendants continued using the “Saline Quick Lube” sign until
July 26, 2011, explaining that B. Darwich was “out of town” from July 19 to July 25.

Defendants state that the preliminary injunction order “did not specifically state a date and time
to make changes to the logo, and B. Darwich made those changes at the first opportunity he had
to do so, only five days after entry” of the order. Resp. at 4.
Also despite the court’s order, Saline Quick Lube continued to operate at the Saline
location until August 11, 2011. Defendants contend that Darwich Brothers is not the tenant at
the Saline location and, therefore, they are not in violation of the court’s order. The court has
already found, however, that Darwich Brothers remains the tenant at the Saline location, because
the landlord did not consent to an assignment of the lease. See June 29, 2011 Order at 4-5.
Defendants claim that this issue was to be decided by the state district court in eviction
proceedings brought by the landlord. The district court, however, found that this court already
decided the issue, which it did. See Pl.’s Reply Ex. B at 16 (“I don’t know whether or not these
two gentlemen [Darwich] understood what that means when a judge, Federal or not, tells you
you can’t do something. . . . I don’t know how one can misunderstand; misinterpret the plain
language by Judge O’Meara. . . .”). The district court further stated that “there is, indeed, no
valid transfer of the lease . . . from Darwich Brothers to Mazh.” Id. at 19. The district court
evicted Mazh from the Saline location as of August 11, 2011.1

1

In its reply brief, Plaintiff also contends that Defendants have an interest in another
quick oil change location within 10 miles of another Victory Lane location, in violation of the
court’s order. At the hearing, Defendants asserted that Plaintiff was aware of Magid Darwich’s
interest in this competing business. Further, in a supplemental filing, Magid Darwich indicated
that he has sold his interest. Assuming that Mr. Darwich has divested himself from the
Farmington Hills, Michigan Uncle Sam’s, the court finds no basis to take further action with
respect to that location.
-2-

The court’s orders of June 29, 2011, and July 20, 2011 are clear. Defendants had no
basis to continue operating their quick oil change business at the Saline location after July 20,
2011. Defendants have provided no legitimate justification for their violation of the court’s
orders. Accordingly, the court will sanction Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of
$7,000, to be payable to the Clerk of the Court within ten days of the date of this order. Further,
the court will award Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in bringing its motion. Within
ten days, Plaintiff shall submit an affidavit and billing records from counsel to aid the court in its
determination of a reasonable fee.
SO ORDERED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

Date: August 26, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on this date, August 26, 2011, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-