Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02212/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02212-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MALCOLM HENSLEY, Guardian

Ad Litem for JOSHUA HENSLEY,

NO. CIV. S-01-2212 FCD DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HANEY-TURNER, LLC, RUSS

BROTHERS, INC., TAGHRID

MUHAREB and SHAFIG MUHAREB,

dba THE WAFFLE SHOP,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on defendant Haney-Turner,

LLC’s (“Haney-Turner”) motion for an order holding co-defendants

Taghrid and Shafig Muhareb, dba The Waffle Shop (collectively,

the “Muharebs”) in contempt for failure to comply with the

court’s order of September 28, 2006 (the “Order”).1 In said

Order, the court granted Haney-Turner’s motion to enforce the

settlement agreement and release (“Settlement Agreement”) entered

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 1 of 13
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 The parties entered the Settlement Agreement in May

2004, and on June 16, 2004, they filed a Stipulation for

Dismissal (Docket #41). Pursuant to said Stipulation, the court

retained jurisdiction “over all disputes between (among) the

parties arising out of the settlement agreement, . . . including

enforcement of the terms of [the Agreement].” 

3 As the prevailing party on the motion, the court

awarded Haney-Turner $8,414.77 in attorney fees and costs. Said

monies have been paid by the Muharebs, and that portion of the

court’s Order is not at issue on this motion.

2

into by defendants with plaintiff Malcolm Hensley (“plaintiff”),

which resolved2 the instant action brought by plaintiff to remedy

accessibility violations at the Muharebs’ The Waffle Shop.3 The

Muharebs were directed to complete the modifications to the

subject premises as provided in the Settlement Agreement within

ninety days of the date of the Order.

For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES HaneyTurner’s motion to hold the Muharebs in contempt. The Muharebs

made a good faith effort to comply with the court’s Order, and

while they did not complete the requisite work in a timely

fashion, as of the date of this order, the vast majority of the

required work is complete, and the Muharebs represent that the

minimal work remaining will be completed shortly. Under the

circumstances, the court finds, in its discretion, that contempt

sanctions are not warranted. 

BACKGROUND

On December 3, 2001, plaintiff brought a claim under the

Americans with Disabilities Act against defendants, alleging

various accessibility violations at the Muharebs’ The Waffle

Shop, located in Yuba City, California. The Muharebs leased the

restaurant facility (sometimes herein, the “Premises”) from

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 13
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

Haney-Turner. In May 2004, plaintiff entered the Settlement

Agreement with defendants, pursuant to which defendants paid

plaintiff $35,000.00 and the Muharebs agreed to perform certain

modifications to the property. As to the required modifications,

the Agreement provided:

Defendants Taghrid and Shafig Muhareb, individually and

dba The Waffle Shop will undertake all of the 

modifications to the property as described in the 

report and plans dated December 16, 2002, prepared by 

expert George Dedekian, with no cap on the amount of

monies spent and with all modifications to be

completed within six months of the date of the

execution of this Agreement. Defendants Taghrid

and Shafig Muhareb will obtain the appropriate

building permits from the appropriate local

authority within one week of the execution of this

Agreement, and will commence work on the

property within two weeks of the execution of this

Agreement. Upon completion of the work by

Defendants Taghrid and Shafig Muhareb, they

will notify Mark Turner of Haney-Turner LLC, in

writing, that the work has been completed, and

Mr. Turner will be given the opportunity to

inspect the property to confirm that the work has

been completed as called out in the report and

plans prepared by expert George Dedekian as

referenced above.

(Order at 3.) 

In opposition to the motion to enforce the Settlement

Agreement, the Muharebs conceded they had not completed the

required modifications. However, they argued their eviction from

the Premises excused their further performance under the

Agreement. The court rejected this argument, finding that the

Settlement Agreement’s terms did not condition the Muharebs’

performance on their possession of the property and that the

Muharebs’ performance was not excused under the doctrine of

frustration of purpose. (Order at 4-8.) As such, the court

ordered the Muharebs to complete the remaining work as directed

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 3 of 13
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 The Settlement Agreement directed that the Muharebs

“will undertake all the modifications to the property as descried

in the report and plans dated December 16, 2002, prepared by

expert George Dedekian.” (Order at 9.)

5 Haney-Turner seeks an award of $10,366.50 in sanctions,

representing the amount of attorneys’ fees it incurred in seeking

to enforce the court’s Order and in bringing the instant motion,

as well as a “per diem sanction” of $25.00 a day from the

December 27, 2006 deadline to the date of the filing of this

motion. (Def.’s Mem. of P&A, filed April 4, 2007, at 8-9

[providing summary of sanctions requested].)

4

by the Settlement Agreement,4

 with particular consideration of

George Dedekian’s (“Dedekian”) declaration, filed in support of

the motion to enforce settlement. In that declaration, Dedekian

described the remaining work, as of March 2006, which in his

opinion had to “be completed and/or corrected . . . for the

Property to be in compliance with the [original] Plans.” (Order

at 9.)

Haney-Turner now brings the instant motion seeking an order

holding the Muharebs in contempt and ordering sanctions for the

Muharebs’ failure to comply with the court’s directive to

complete all necessary work by December 27, 2006.5 According to

Haney-Turner, the repairs to the parking lot were completed late

(on January 12, 2007), and the modifications to the handicap

ramp, counter height, and bathrooms have not been completed as of

the date of the filing of the motion (April 4, 2007). HaneyTurner maintains that the work was not completed despite its full

cooperation with the Muharebs and their contractors. More

specfically, Haney-Turner contends that the Muharebs have

willfully (1) delayed obtaining the requisite permits for the

work; (2) failed to provide the contractors with the essential

repair information; (3) hired contractors who were not properly

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 4 of 13
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

6 The Muharebs maintain that with the exception of some

delays in the work due to bad weather, their contractors

diligently worked to complete the repairs. They specifically

dispute that one of the contractor’s employees, Greg Abrew

(“Abrew”), stated otherwise. (Abrew Decl., filed May 8, 2007.) 

Abrew states in his declaration, filed in support of the

Muharebs’ opposition, that, contrary to the waitresses’

declarations submitted by Haney-Turner (Docket #s 66-7, 66-8), he

never said the Muharebs’ contractor was taking as long as he

could in order to take away business from the tenant. (Abrew

Decl., ¶ 6.) Abrew declared that it was the contractor’s

intention to “complete the job as soon as possible.” (Id.) 

Indeed, the Muharebs note that their contractor at times worked

during the evenings so that the restaurant tenant’s business

would not be impacted. (Mason Decl., filed May 8, 2007, ¶ 9.)

5

licensed or insured; (4) failed to fulfill their payment

obligations to the contractors, thus further delaying the work;

and (5) sought access to the property unreasonably. (See

generally Turner, Carrero, Cullen and Sewell Decls., filed April

4, 2007.) 

The Muharebs respond that the delay in completion of the

work, following this court’s Order, has been caused by HaneyTurner’s property manager, Mark Turner (“Turner”) and the current

restaurant tenant’s manager, Mike Carrero (“Carrero”), who have

inhibited the Muharebs’ efforts to complete the repairs. 

According to Muharebs, since receiving notice of the court’s

Order, in early October 2006, they have diligently sought to

complete the requisite repairs, hiring qualified contractors who

followed Dedekian’s plans and consulted him when needed regarding

the work.6 However, they assert that the work has been delayed

due to Turner’s and Carrero’s conduct. In particular, Turner (1)

made it difficult for the Muharebs to gain access to the

Premises; (2) dissuaded contractors from agreeing to do the work

by misrepresenting the nature of the required work; (3) caused

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 5 of 13
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

6

delays in the Muharebs’ contractors obtaining permits for the

work; and (4) stopped work on the Premises for several days,

claiming to not have a copy of the Muharebs’ contractor’s

license, bond number and insurance information. Carrero, the

Muharebs assert, (1) interrupted work on the Premises by

questioning the contractor’s employees about the work; (2)

stopped work on the interior repairs, claiming incorrectly that a

permit did not cover the work; (3) caused a subcontractor to

decline the job because Carrero told the subcontractor that the

repairs were the subject of a pending lawsuit; and (4) told

another subcontractor’s employee that the Muharebs would not pay

for the work and that the work was the subject of a lawsuit,

which caused the employee to the leave the Premises and not

complete the work that day. (See generally Muhareb, Abrew and

Mason Decls., filed May 8, 2007.)

Despite this conduct by Turner and Carrero, the Muharebs

assert that, as of April 12, 2007, all required repairs have been

completed, and the City of Yuba approved the work. (Mason Decl.,

¶ 12; Muhareb Decl., Exs. Y, Z.)

In their reply, however, Haney-Turner proffered the

declaration of Paul Klein (“Klein”), Chief Building Official for

the City of Yuba (sometimes herein, the “City”), who attested

that the repairs at the Premises were not complete; in a letter

to the Muharebs’ contractor, Eric Mason (“Mason”) of Creative

Works, dated May 4, 2007, Klein explained that there were eleven

points of deficiencies/modifications per Dedekian’s plans that

remained outstanding, including the required signage, ramp

handrail and curb modifications, and multiple items within the

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 6 of 13
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

7 As Klein’s letter was raised for the first time in

Haney-Turner’s reply, the court requested that the Muharebs

respond to the letter in a sur-reply. (Minute Orders, Docket #s

71, 72.)

7

restrooms. Klein stated in his letter that the approval the

Muharebs received on April 12, 2007 from his department “was

inadvertently finaled,” due to incorrect information on the

permit records. Klein explained that as a result of the 

misinformation, the entirety of the Premises had not been

inspected on April 12, and after a full inspection on April 27,

2007, the aforementioned eleven items remained to be corrected in

order to bring the Premises into compliance with the plans and

the governing law. Klein “apologize[d] for the inconvenience”

caused by his department, and asked that the Muharebs contact the

department to arrange for a final inspection upon completion of

the remaining work. (Klein Decl., filed May 18, 2007, Ex. A.) 

Upon receipt of Klein’s letter, the Muharebs contacted Mason

regarding the items listed in the letter. (Muhareb Sur-Reply

Decl., filed May 29, 2007.)7 Neither the Muharebs nor Mason were

present for the second inspection that took place on April 27. 

Mason met with Klein on May 21, 2007 to discuss the remaining

work. (Mason Sur-Reply Decl., filed May 29, 2007.) On May 22,

2007, Mason began work on items one through six listed in Klein’s

letter regarding the ramp and parking lot. These items were

completed on the evening of May 24, 2007, and on May 25, 2007,

Mason contacted Klein to arrange for inspection during the week

of May 28. (Id.) Regarding the modifications to the restrooms,

the Muharebs’ prior contractor, Jerry Danielson (“Danielson”),

who had performed repairs on the restrooms in 2005 and previously

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 7 of 13
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

8

received approval from the City of the work, met with Mike

Campos, a senior inspector working under Klein, to discuss items

seven through eleven. Danielson attests that provided access to

the property is timely received, these items will be completed by

June 6, 2007, thus concluding the entirety of the required work. 

(Supp. Danielson Decl., filed May 29, 2007.)

STANDARD

The court may assess attorney fees or other sanctions under

its inherent power for the “willful disobedience of a court

order.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45 (1991). The

decision to do so rests entirely in the court’s discretion. Air

Separation, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 45 F.3d

288, 291 (9th Cir. 1991) (recognizing that the court has

discretion whether to impose sanctions for violations of its

orders).

Here, Haney-Turner specifically seeks relief, not pursuant

to the court’s inherent power, but under the rules governing

civil contempt. Unlike criminal contempt proceedings, civil

contempt seeks to coerce compliance, not to punish disobedience. 

Where the contempt consists of failure to perform an act within

the contemnor’s power to perform, he may be fined or imprisoned

until he agrees to comply with the order. The contemnor may also

be required to pay damages to the moving party for injury

suffered as a result of the violation. General Signal Corp. V.

Donallco, Inc., 787 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986); American

Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574, 584 (5th

Cir. 2000) (compensatory sanctions “merely imitate the relief

that would be provided in a damages action”). Monetary sanctions

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 8 of 13
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

9

may also be imposed to coerce future compliance. Such coercive

sanctions need not be matched to any actual loss suffered by the

plaintiff. Glover v. Johnson, 199 F.3d 310, 313 (6th Cir. 1999). 

Where a fine is coercive, not compensatory, the monies are

payable to the court, not the opposing party. General Signal,

787 F.2d at 1380.

The factors to be considered by the court in imposing a

civil contempt sanction include: (1) the harm from noncompliance;

(2) the probable effectiveness of the sanction; (3) the

contemnor’s financial resources and the burden the sanctions may

impose; and (4) the contemnor’s willfulness in disregarding the

court’s order. United States v. United Mine Workers of America,

330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947); General Signal Corp., 787 F.2d at

1380.

The party alleging civil contempt must demonstrate the

alleged contemnor violated the court’s order by “clear and

convincing evidence,” not merely a preponderance of the evidence. 

Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litigation v. Motion

Picture Ass’n of America, 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). To

be sanctionable, the contempt “‘need not be willful,’ and there

is no good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a

court order.” Id. (citation omitted). However, substantial

compliance with the court order is a defense to civil contempt,

and it “is not vitiated by ‘a few technical violations’ where

every reasonable effort has been made to comply.” Id. (citation

omitted).

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 9 of 13
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

8 Haney-Turner’s objections (Docket #70) to the Muharebs’

declarations filed in support of their opposition are OVERRULED. 

In the context of the instant motion, the court properly

considers all evidence submitted by the parties. Moreover, for

the reasons set forth below, the court need not resolve the

parties’ various factual disputes to resolve the motion.

10

ANALYSIS

The parties vigorously dispute the reasons why the subject

work on the Premises was not completed by the Muharebs by the

deadline set forth in the court’s Order.8 However, absent an

evidentiary hearing to assess the relevant declarants’

credibility, the court cannot determine whose version of the

facts is correct. Nevertheless, the court can resolve the

instant motion on the papers submitted because when reviewed in

their entirety, they demonstrate, at a minimum, that the Muharebs

made and continue to make a good faith effort to comply with the

court’s Order. Under the circumstances, the court finds, in its

discretion, that contempt sanctions are not merited.

Since the issuance of the court’s Order, the Muharebs have

consistently moved toward completion of the necessary work. 

While the work was not timely completed, the court emphasizes

that at no time, since the issuance of the court’s Order, have

the Muharebs refused to perform the work in any respect or failed

to, at least, try to complete the work in a timely fashion. 

United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. at 303-04 (recognizing

that an important factor in considering imposition of contempt

sanctions is the contemnor’s “willfulness” in disobeying the

court’s order); General Signal Corp., 787 F.2d at 1380 (accord).

Indeed, as of April 12, 2007, the Muharebs reasonably believed

based on the City’s approval that all necessary work was

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 10 of 13
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

11

completed. Klein acknowledged in his May 4, 2007 letter that the

City’s original inspector “signed off” on the permits, approving

the work and closing the file. As such, the Muharebs

appropriately relied on the City’s approval in filing their

opposition. 

The Muharebs did not become aware of any outstanding issues

with the work until they received Klein’s letter on May 4

(neither the Muharebs nor their contractors were present at the

latter April 27 inspection of the property). Immediately upon

receipt of the letter, the Muharebs had their contractors meet

with Klein or his staff to remedy the outstanding issues; the

Muharebs did not challenge the latter findings of the City,

despite the prior approvals given by it (both recently on April

12, 2007 and previously in 2005 with respect to Danielson’s work

on the restrooms), and have worked diligently to complete all

work as outlined by Klein in his letter. Klein has acknowledged

the Muharebs’ and their contractors’ cooperation and diligent

efforts to complete the remaining work. (Govindarao Decl., filed

May 29, 2007, ¶ 3-4.) 

Substantial compliance is a defense to civil contempt, and

the court properly considers the Muharebs’ good faith efforts to

comply with the court’s Order. Dual-Deck Video, 10 F.3d at 695. 

Therefore, based on these efforts, the court denies the instant

motion. 

However, in accordance with the Muharebs’ representations in

their papers, the court directs that the remaining work to the

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 11 of 13
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

9 The Muharebs and Danielson represented that the work to

the restrooms would be completed by June 6, 2007. However, the

court extends that deadline after consideration of the

Supplemental Declaration of Mark Turner, filed June 4, 2007

(Docket #75). Based on said declaration, it appears Danielson is

currently in the process of reactivating his contractor’s

license. The court extends the deadline in order to allow

Danielson sufficient time to provide Haney-Turner with proof of

his renewed license and any other applicable information and to

thereafter perform the required work. Contrary to Haney-Turner’s

suggestion, the court does not find Danielson’s prior inactive

status grounds to grant its motion; Danielson has sought to

reactivate his license and has paid the applicable fees to do so.

12

restrooms be completed by June 18, 2007.9

 Haney-Turner shall

cooperate with the Muharebs to facilitate prompt access to the

Premises. Should the Muharebs be unable to complete the work by

June 18, they shall inform the court of the reasons therefor and

move the court for an extension of the deadline. The Muharebs

are further directed to facilitate a final inspection of the

property by Klein or his staff by July 6, 2007. Should the City

be unable to perform such inspection before said date, the

Muharebs shall move the court for an extension of that deadline. 

Upon completion of the inspection and receipt of final approval

from the City, the Muharebs shall file with the court and serve

Haney-Turner within ten days of said approval, a declaration

attesting to receipt of the final approval and completion of all

required modifications. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 12 of 13
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

13

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Haney-Turner’s motion for

contempt of court order is DENIED. The Muharebs are nonetheless

ordered to comply with the above directions with respect to 

completion of the remaining work on the Premises. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 4, 2007

Case 2:01-cv-02212-FCD-DAD Document 76 Filed 06/04/07 Page 13 of 13