Opinion ID: 2765934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Since 1986, George Thanos owned a four-story building on Connecticut Avenue, N.W., and ran a dry-cleaning business out of the first floor of that building. He rented out the three upper floors to a variety of tenants. In 2001, a Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) investigation revealed that the fourth floor tenant, Supra Spa, was operating as a prostitution front. Mr. Thanos met with District government representatives and expressed unwillingness to assist MPD in investigating the alleged prostitution problem in his building, indicating, among other things, that he felt like MPD was asking him to “spy” on his tenants. The investigation was not pursued any further at that time. As Detective Mark Gilkey—a supervising manager in the MPD Prostitution Enforcement Unit—later explained at trial, MPD shifted its investigatory focus to “street” prostitution for a period of several years following Mr. Thanos‟s initial contact with the department. Seven years later, Mr. Thanos and his fourth floor tenants once again came to MPD‟s attention when officers made two prostitution-related arrests at that location.2 On May 23, 2008, the District obtained a preliminary injunction against Supra Spa precluding it from doing any business on the property until it obtained a 2 Detective Gilkey testified that, as an undercover detective at the premises on March 4, 2008, he was offered sex for money after a brief conversation with a Supra Spa employee. 4 certificate of occupancy and a basic business license. In July, MPD made two more prostitution-related arrests at Supra Spa.3 The District contacted Mr. Thanos in August 2008 to put him on notice that he once again had a prostitution-related nuisance on the fourth floor of his building. See D.C. Code 42-3103 (b). The letter informed Mr. Thanos of his responsibilities under the Drug or Prostitution-Related Nuisance Abatement Act and explained that the District could file suit against Mr. Thanos if he failed to abate the nuisance. See D.C. Code 42-3102. Although Mr. Thanos took no action, Supra Spa vacated the premises that August. Because the District had not yet received a reply from Mr. Thanos, the District filed a complaint against him seeking an injunction ordering Mr. Thanos to evict Supra Spa as a tenant. Mr. Thanos sent a letter, dated September 22, 2008, informing the District that Supra Spa had vacated the premises and that the man who was currently leasing the space would be responsible for disposing of any items left behind by Supra Spa. Mr. Thanos later explained at trial that the new tenant, Don Gardner, was sleeping on the fourth floor to protect the premises from former Supra Spa customers who banged on the door at night attempting to gain entry. Mr. Gardner was paying Mr. 3 Ray Melvin of the MPD Prostitution Enforcement Unit testified at trial that he went undercover to Supra Spa on July 24, 2008, and was offered both “sex and oral sex” by a young woman. 5 Thanos one dollar per month in rent. On November 28, 2008, Mr. Thanos leased the fourth floor of his building to VIP, another massage provider.4 VIP opened for business in April 2009. MPD began receiving complaints shortly thereafter from community members and nongovernmental organizations indicating that prostitution was once again occurring on Mr. Thanos‟s premises. Officers made four more prostitution-related arrests on June 30, 2009, including VIP‟s owner, Deborah Poindexter.5 On July 17, 2009, the court granted the District‟s motion for leave to amend its complaint against Mr. Thanos to add Ms. Poindexter and VIP as defendants and to incorporate new facts. A trial on the District‟s request for injunctive relief was set for March 22, 2010. Two more prostitution-related arrests were made on October 28, 2009, while the matter was awaiting trial. Shortly after the trial but before the judge issued a ruling, MPD Officer Roy Melvin was involved in a June 16 undercover investigation at VIP—then doing 4 The lease specified that VIP was not to use the premises for any unlawful purposes or engage in “sexually oriented activity.” 5 Detective Gilkey testified that when he entered the spa while working undercover, Ms. Poindexter directed him to a room and brought “a girl” to him, “and then there was an agreement with the girl she brought back”—namely, “oral sex for money.” 6 business as “Asian Mist”—that led to the arrest of one person for solicitation and prostitution as well as the recovery of a large salt container filled with approximately 1000 used condoms and a flashlight hiding a stash of new condoms. While awaiting the court‟s ruling regarding a permanent injunction, the District again moved for a TRO on October 8, 2010, to stop Mr. Thanos from continuing to rent the property to VIP and for other related relief based on two additional prostitution-related arrests made a month before on the fourth floor of Mr. Thanos‟s property.6 The court granted the District‟s request on February 9, 2011, and enjoined Mr. Thanos from renting his property to VIP or any other business that involved touching, prohibited VIP from engaging in any business on the premises or elsewhere in the District, and directed Mr. Thanos to change the locks on the building and place a sign on the property indicating that the massage parlor was closed for business. On March 11, 2011, the court issued its decision from the March 2010 trial concluding that Mr. Thanos‟s property constituted a prostitution-related nuisance as defined by the Drug or Prostitution-Related Nuisance Abatement Statute, that Mr. Thanos received statutorily sufficient notice of the nuisance, and that he failed 6 The undercover operation, prompted again by citizen complaints, also led to the seizure of $14,000 in cash. 7 to abate the nuisance as required by the statute. The court also found that VIP and Ms. Poindexter failed to cease the illegal activities. The court entered a judgment of liability against Mr. Thanos, VIP, and Ms. Poindexter, and ordered that the February 9, 2011, TRO remain in effect pending final determination and entry of an appropriate remedy. On May 18, 2011, the court held an evidentiary hearing to determine damages and equitable relief. The District sought per diem fines at a rate of $100 per day that VIP leased the unit in Mr. Thanos‟s building (totaling $82,200), rents and other monies collected by Mr. Thanos from VIP during that period ($122,281), and the gross revenues of VIP‟s illegal business (which the District approximated at $3,225,600). Finally, the District sought attorney‟s fees ($76,451.93 from Mr. Thanos and $48,236.93 from VIP) and costs ($3,308.55). The District was represented throughout the proceedings by a so-called “Special Assistant Attorney General,” a private attorney acting in pro bono capacity on behalf of the District. On February 10, 2012, the court granted the District‟s request for attorney‟s fees and issued a permanent injunction but denied its request for income disgorgement, finding such a remedy unsupported by the statute. Mr. Thanos appeals the trial court‟s issuance of the permanent injunction and attorney‟s fees. The District cross-appeals, arguing that the court abused its 8 discretion by denying the government‟s request for disgorgement of Mr. Thanos‟s and VIP‟s revenues.