Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00428/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00428-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 10cv0428

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAIL BOXES ETC., INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv0428 DMS (RBB)

ORDER (1) FIXING AMOUNT OF

ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS

AND (2) FINDING DEFENDANTS

IN CONTEMPT AND AWARDING

SANCTIONS

[Docket No. 29]

vs.

JEDOJE, INC. and JOSE ESCUDERO,

individually,

Defendant.

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s request to fix the amount of Plaintiff’s

attorneys fees and costs on the judgment, and for a contempt finding against Defendants. On the

judgment, Plaintiff requests $49,848 in fees and $3,380.29 in costs. On the issue of contempt, Plaintiff

asserts that a contempt finding is warranted in light of Defendants’ failure to comply with the

Permanent Injunction issued on May 20, 2010. Plaintiff seeks coercive sanctions of $1,000 per day

for each day that Defendants remain in violation of the Injunction, and compensatory sanctions of $70

per day for each day that Defendants remain in violation of the Injunction and attorneys fees and costs

incurred in bringing the motion for contempt. 

I.

BACKGROUND

On February 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed the present case against Defendants Jedoje, Inc. and Jose

Escudero alleging claims for breach of a license agreement, breach of a settlement agreement and

Case 3:10-cv-00428-DMS-RBB Document 36 Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 10cv0428

specific performance. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 8, 2010, realleging the

claims in the original Complaint and alleging new claims for trademark infringement, federal unfair

competition and common law misappropriation. 

Two days after filing the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a

temporary restraining order. After reviewing that motion, and failing to receive a response from

Defendants, on March 15, 2010, the Court granted the motion and issued a temporary restraining order

and order to show cause re: preliminary injunction. That order set a hearing date for the preliminary

injunction, and ordered Defendants to file a response no later than five court days before that hearing.

After failing to receive a response from Defendants, the Court issued a preliminary injunction on

March 26, 2010. 

On April 6, 2010, Plaintiff requested entry of default against Defendants for their failure to

respond to the First Amended Complaint. Defaults were entered that day. Plaintiff thereafter moved

for entry of default judgment. Again, Defendants failed to respond. Thus, on May 20, 2010, the Court

entered default judgment and a permanent injunction against Defendants.

II.

APPLICATION TO FIX AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS

In the default judgment and permanent injunction, the Court invited Plaintiff’s counsel to

submit a further petition for attorneys fees and costs, which counsel has done. In that petition, counsel

request $49,848.29 in attorneys fees and $3,380.29 in costs. The Court has reviewed the records

submitted in support of these amounts, and finds the requested amounts are reasonable and

appropriate. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff $49,848.29 in attorneys fees and $3,380.29 in

costs.

III.

CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS

“To hold a party in contempt, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the party

violated a specific and definite order and that it had sufficient notice of its terms and the fact that it

would be sanctioned if it did not comply.” Verizon California Inc. v. OnlineNIC, Inc., 647 F.Supp.2d

1110, 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2009). 

Case 3:10-cv-00428-DMS-RBB Document 36 Filed 09/28/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 10cv0428

Here, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are in contempt of that portion of the injunction that

restrained Defendants from the following conduct: 

for a period of six (6) months from the entry of the injunction, being associated either

directly or indirectly, by virtue of being an employee, proprietor, partner, stockholder,

agent, principal, owner, part-owner, co-venturer, officer, director, manager, operator,

financier, salesman, or other participant or through family relationships, with a

competing business within what was formerly the protected franchise territory. A

competing business shall be one that is generally engaged in and offers postal,

communication and business services and products and related services and products.

(Docket No. 27 at 2.) Plaintiff also asserts Defendants have failed to comply with reporting

requirement of the injunction, which required Defendants to “file with the Court, and serve upon

Plaintiffs’ counsel, within thirty (30) days after entry of judgment, a report signed by all Defendants

under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendants have complied with the

judgment of the Court[.]” (Id.) 

Plaintiff has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants have failed to comply

with the reporting requirement. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he is “not aware of any contact or

communication by Defendants or their counsel following entry of the permanent injunction.” (Decl.

of Timothy S. Blackford in Supp. of Ex Parte Application ¶ 7.) Furthermore, the Court has not

received any communication from Defendants about the status of their compliance with the injunction.

Plaintiff has shown that it served a copy of the injunction on Defendants’ counsel, and also served

Defendants’ counsel with a copy of the order to show cause why Defendants should not be found in

contempt. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to a finding of contempt for Defendants’ failure to comply

with the injunction’s reporting requirement. 

Plaintiff is not entitled to a contempt finding, however, on the non-compete portion of the

injunction. Although the evidence presently before the Court reflects the presence of a FedEx

business center in the same location as Defendants’ former business, Plaintiff has failed to provide the

Court with any evidence that Defendants are operating that FedEx business. Absent such evidence,

Plaintiff has not met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants are in

contempt of the non-compete portion of the injunction. 

The only issue thus remaining is the sanction to be imposed. Plaintiff seeks compensatory

sanctions in the amount of $70 per day and an award of attorneys fees and costs incurred in bringing

Case 3:10-cv-00428-DMS-RBB Document 36 Filed 09/28/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 10cv0428

this contempt proceeding. Plaintiff also seeks a coercive sanction of $1,000 per day. The basis for

the amount of compensatory sanctions appears to be Defendants’ failure to comply with the noncompete portion of the injunction. However, in light of the Court’s finding on that issue, the Court

declines to award those sanctions. Nevertheless, the Court finds attorneys fees and costs are

appropriate, as is a lesser coercive sanction to ensure Defendants’ compliance with the reporting

requirement. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff attorneys fees and costs in the amount of

$6,004, and imposes coercive sanctions of $50 per day. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set out above, the Court fixes the amount of Plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs

as $49,848 and $3,380.29, respectively. The Court also finds Defendants are in contempt of the

injunction, and issues attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $6,004, and coercive sanctions in the

amount of $50 per day. Plaintiff shall serve this order on Defendants’ counsel, and shall also serve

a copy on Defendant Escudero, personally. The coercive sanctions shall take effect upon receipt of

proof of service as directed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00428-DMS-RBB Document 36 Filed 09/28/10 Page 4 of 4