Xfinity Mobile, A Brand of Comcast OTR1, LLC et al v. D Town Trading INC. et al
Filing
14
ORDER granting Petitioner's 13 Motion for Entry of Judgment. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 4/18/2023. (brl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC
XFINITY MOBILE, A BRAND OF
COMCAST OTR1, LLC et al.,
)
)
Petitioners,
)
)
v.
)
)
D TOWN TRADING INC. et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. No. 13)
filed by the Petitioners, Xfinity Mobile, a brand of Comcast OTR1, LLC; Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC; and Comcast Corporation. The Petitioners ask the Court to enter judgment
against the Respondents, D Town Trading Inc. and Cellport International Inc., along with their
officers and directors. Mot. Entry J. 1, Doc. No. 13.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Petitioners brought this action to compel the Respondents to provide documents in
another case, Xfinity Mobile, a brand of Comcast OTR1, LLC, et al. v. Devin Tech Inc., et al., 1:19CV-03294-JPB (N.D. Ga.). Mot. Compel 1, Doc. No. 1. In support of their Motion for Entry of
Judgment, the Petitioners invoke Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 45, 28 U.S.C. § 1927,
and the Court’s inherent powers. Mot. Entry J. 1. The Motion is based on the Respondents’
continued violation of three orders: (i) an order granting the Petitioners’ Motion to Compel, which
was issued by the Magistrate Judge on July 28, 2020 (Doc. No. 3), (ii) an order that held the
Respondents in civil contempt and imposed fines on them, which was issued on March 26, 2021
(Doc. No. 7), and (iii) an order, issued on January 3, 2022, that held the Respondents’ officers and
Case 3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC Document 14 Filed 04/19/23 Page 1 of 6
directors in civil contempt and made them liable for the fines and costs incurred by the
Respondents (Doc. No. 10).
The second order fined the Respondents $500 per day starting on April 2, 2021. Doc. No.
7 at 3. It was ordered that the fines would continue to accumulate until the Respondents began to
comply with the first order. Id. The second order also awarded the Petitioners all reasonable fees
and costs incurred in connection with this proceeding. Id.
The third order recognized that the Respondents remained in civil contempt. Doc. No. 10
at 3. The order also held in civil contempt any of the Respondents’ officers or directors who had
knowledge of the Court’s previous orders. Id. It noted the ongoing imposition of $500 in daily
fines, and it again awarded the Petitioners all reasonable fees and costs incurred in connection with
this proceeding. Id. Finally, the third order stated that, if the Respondents failed to purge their
contempt by January 31, 2022, then any of the Respondents’ officers or directors who had
knowledge of the Court’s previous orders would be jointly and severally liable for any fines or
costs incurred by their associated Respondent that accrue from February 1, 2022 onward. Id.
II.
DISCUSSION
The Respondents have failed to comply with the Court’s orders. So have their officers and
directors (Jamal Alasfar, Taha Jamal Alasfar, Hamzeh Jamal Alasfar, and Tayseer Alkhayyat).
The Court finds that the Respondents and their officers and directors were properly served with
the Court’s orders and have intentionally ignored them.1 The Court further finds that the Petitioners
On January 4, 2022, the Petitioners’ counsel sent copies of the third order, the first order, and the
original subpoenas via FedEx to the following parties: Cellport, D Town, Jamal Alasfar (President
of Cellport and D Town), Taha Jamal Alasfar (Vice President of Cellport), Hamzeh Jamal Alasfar
(Treasurer of D Town and former President of Cellport), and Tayseer Alkhayyat (Vice President
of D Town and registered agent for D Town and Cellport). Podolsky Decl. ¶ 4, Doc. No. 13-1. The
tracking information for the packages shows that they have been delivered. Id. ¶ 5. Further,
Hamzeh Alasfar signed for the package sent to D Town and Jamal Alasfar signed for the package
sent to his home address. Id. Copies were also sent to Hamzeh Alasfar, Jamal Alasfar, Taha
1
Case 3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC Document 14 Filed 04/19/23 Page 2 of 6
are entitled to a judgment comprising all the fees and costs that they have incurred in connection
with this matter. A judgment against the Respondents and their officers and directors for the fines
they have been accruing is also warranted.
The Petitioners detail their attorneys’ fees and costs in a declaration from their counsel. See
Podolsky Decl. ¶¶ 11–15, Exs. 6–8, Doc. No. 13-1. Based upon the record evidence, the docket,
and the Court’s own experience in assessing the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, the Court finds
that the attorneys’ rates—ranging from $475 to $615 per hour for partners and set at $400 per hour
for associates—are reasonable. The Court independently reviewed the time entries and finds that
the hours claimed are reasonable and within the scope of recoverable tasks. The Court also finds
that the costs incurred are reasonable, supported by evidence, and fully recoverable.2
The Court may “impose sanctions for civil contempt to coerce obedience to a court order
or to compensate the complainant for losses sustained as a result of the contumacy.” In re Gen.
Motors Corp., 61 F.3d 256, 258 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Paramedics Electromedicina Comercial,
Ltda. v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Techs., Inc., 369 F.3d 645, 657–58 (2d Cir. 2004). When a monetary
sanction is compensatory, it is paid to the complainant. See United States v. United Mine Workers
of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 304 (1947) (“Where compensation is intended, a fine is imposed, payable to
the complainant.”). When it is coercive, it is paid to the Court. See Latrobe Steel Co. v. United
Alasfar, and Tayseer Alkhayyat via email on January 4 and January 27. Id. ¶ 6. Additionally, on
January 27, the Petitioners’ counsel left a voicemail on Hamzeh Alasfar’s cellphone regarding this
matter and the Court’s orders. Id. ¶ 7. On June 10, 2022, the Petitioners’ counsel sent a final letter
to the Respondents and their officers and directors via email and FedEx informing them that the
Petitioners planned to file a motion for entry of judgment against each of them unless this matter
was resolved first. Id. ¶ 8. No response was received from the Respondents or their principals. Id.
¶ 9.
2 The Court’s third order made the Respondents’ officers and directors liable for only the “fines or
costs” incurred by their associated Respondent from February 1, 2022 onward. Doc. No. 10 at 3.
Accordingly, the officers and directors are not liable for the attorneys’ fees paid by the Petitioners.
Case 3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC Document 14 Filed 04/19/23 Page 3 of 6
Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO, 545 F.2d 1336, 1346 (3d Cir. 1976) (“In the case of a coercive
fine, no money passes to the complainant as damages . . . ; instead, it is paid into the court or the
public treasury.”); see also N.Y. State Nat’l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1353–54 (2d
Cir. 1989). As ordered below, to compensate the Petitioners for their losses, the Respondents will
reimburse the Petitioners for the money they have spent on costs and attorneys’ fees. And to coerce
obedience to the Court’s orders, the Respondents and their officers and directors will pay their
fines to the Court.
III.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Court has jurisdiction over all the parties and claims.
2. The Petitioners’ Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED as
described below.
3. The Respondents (D Town Trading Inc. and Cellport International Inc.) and their
officers and directors (Jamal Alasfar, Taha Jamal Alasfar, Hamzeh Jamal Alasfar, and
Tayseer Alkhayyat) remain IN CIVIL CONTEMPT of the Court’s previous orders.
4. The Petitioners (Xfinity Mobile, a brand of Comcast OTR1, LLC; Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC; and Comcast Corporation) incurred $30,110.50 in attorneys’
fees and $680.78 in costs for filing and prosecuting this action. Podolsky Decl. ¶¶ 12,
14–15. Therefore, a monetary judgment is hereby entered against the Respondents,
jointly and severally, and in favor of the Petitioners, in the principal amount of
$30,791.28, which shall bear interest at the legal rate, for which let execution issue
forthwith.
5. Because of their noncompliance, the Respondents have been accruing a $500 fine every
day since April 2, 2021. As of April 18, 2023, that equates to 746 days and a total of
Case 3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC Document 14 Filed 04/19/23 Page 4 of 6
$373,000 in daily fines. Therefore, a monetary judgment is hereby entered against the
Respondents, jointly and severally, in the principal amount of $373,000, which shall
be paid to the Court, and which shall bear interest at the legal rate, for which let
execution issue forthwith.
6. The Respondents’ officers and directors (Jamal Alasfar, Taha Jamal Alasfar, Hamzeh
Jamal Alasfar, and Tayseer Alkhayyat) are jointly and severally liable for the fines and
costs incurred by their associated Respondent from February 1, 2022 onward. As of
April 18, 2023, that equates to 441 days and a total of $220,500 in daily fines.
Therefore, a monetary judgment is hereby entered against these officers and directors,
jointly and severally with each other, in the principal amount of $220,500, which shall
be paid to the Court, and which shall bear interest at the legal rate, for which let
execution issue forthwith.
7. The last known address of Cellport International Inc. is 516 Griffith Road, Charlotte,
NC 28217.
8. The last known address of D Town Trading Inc. is 2808 W. Sugar Creek Road,
Charlotte, NC 28262.
9. The last known address of Jamal Alasfar is 6940 Augustine Way, Charlotte, NC 28270.
10. The last known address of Taha Jamal Alasfar is 6940 Augustine Way, Charlotte, NC
28270.
11. The last known address of Hamzeh Jamal Alasfar is 4523 Ellicott Station Parkway,
Charlotte, NC 28210.
12. The last known address of Tayseer Alkhayyat is 516 Griffith Road, Charlotte, NC
28217.
Case 3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC Document 14 Filed 04/19/23 Page 5 of 6
13. The Court finds, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), that there is no just
reason for delay, and it orders that judgment shall be entered against the Respondents
and their officers and directors as set forth herein.
14. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter and the parties to this action so that it
may enter further sanctions against the Respondents and their officers and directors as
necessary.
Signed: April 18, 2023
Case 3:20-mc-00083-RJC-DSC Document 14 Filed 04/19/23 Page 6 of 6
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?