Sprint Nextel Corporation et al v. Ace Wholesale, INC et al
ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' 38 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs from Third Parties. The Court finds Digitek Telecom, its principal, Gopal Agarwal, Sol Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., its princ ipal, Avinash Gandhi, Ali Sadaqa Trading LC, its principal , Amin Ali, New WayInternational 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 9; attorneys $34,991.65 by 4/3/2017. Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a notice with the Court no later than 4/4/2017 to address whether Third Parties have complied with this Order. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION and
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
ACE WHOLESALE, INC, JASON FLOAREA,
ERIC MANDREGER, DOMINICK LANORE,
TONY ARCHIE, JOSE GENEL,
BARNEY GUNN, COPATRADE, INC., and
(Related to Civil Action
1:12-cv-2902-JEC, N.D. Ga.)
This 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 the Subpoenas.
On 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
The 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 reasonable.
The 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 _______________, 2016. See, e.g.,
April 3, 2017
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).
April 3, 2017
Third Parties are hereby ordered to produce by ______________, 2016, 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 been waived.
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 _____________, 2016. Third Parties must
March 15, 2017
contact Plaintiffs’ counsel no later than _____________, 2016 to confirm their attendance at the
deposition. If Third Parties fail to confirm their attendance by _____________, Plaintiffs are
March 16, 2017
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 MAY INCLUDE
NONCOMPLIANCE, AND, IF THE NONCOMPLIANCE IS SHOWN TO BE WILLFUL,
NONCOMPLIANT PRINCIPALS UNTIL THEY TAKE ACTION TO PURGE THE
CONTEMPT IDENTIFIED IN THIS COURT’S PREVIOUS ORDERS.
April 4, 2017.
Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a notice with the Court no later than _____________,
2016 to address whether Third Parties have complied with this Order.
DONE and ORDERED this ____ day of _________, 2017.
THE HONORABLE RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?