UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
HARRY JAKEYIA ASHFORD, et aI., )
)
. ,
Plaintiffs, )
) Civil Case No. 06-1561 (RJL)
~ )
)
EAST COAST EXPRESS EVICTION )
et aI., )
)
Defendants.
W
MEMORANDUM ORDER
(March ~ 2011) [##1&5, 189]
Presently before this Court are plaintiffs' Motions for Civil Contempt against
defendants Vincent Crawford and Crawford & Crawford (collectively Crawford
defendants"), Nelson Terry and East Coast Express Eviction (collectively "East Coast
defendants"), Choya Lord Rodriguez and Platinum Realtor Service, Inc. (collectively·
"Platinum defendants"), and Irwen Staten and Butch Enterprises, Inc. (collectively.
"~utch defendants").
On January 28,2010, this Court issued a partial defaultjudgm~nt,ordering the
Crawford defendants, East Coast defendants and Platinum defendants to ~'pay' their : ''':,
. ~- '" .
employees at least the minimum wage applicable in the jurisdiction, wh~re the' employe~s, -':
perform their work" and to "maintain records for all employees as required by :mini~um.
... ~ . . . -.' . .
wage laws of the jurisdiction where the employees perform their work:'; -Partial Default
J. and Order, Jan. 28, 2010. On March 5, 2010, this Court issued a parthiljudgme~t,
1
ordering the Butch defendants to likewise pay their employees the mandatory minimum
wage and maintain the requisite records. Mem. Order and Partial J., Mar. 5,2010.
On May 13,2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for civil contempt against East Coast
defendants, Platinum defendants and Butch defendants. On June 14,2010, plaintiffs filed
a motion for civil contempt against Crawford defendants. The motions allege that the
defendants have failed to comply with this Court's orders from January 28, 2010 and
March 5, 2010, continuing to consistently pay wages below the minimum wage. In
support of their motions, plaintiffs submitted affidavits by various employees of the
defendants, detailing the fact of their employment and the wages received from
defendants. This Court did not receive responsive pleadings from East Coast defendants,
Platinum defendants or Crawford defendants. On June 30, 2010, Butch defendants
opposed the motion against them claiming that the affidavits are either insufficiently
detailed or, in the case of the affidavit by Maurice Osbourne, that the affiant was not, in
fact, employed by the Butch defendants.
Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b), the court may treat a motion as
conceded if an opposing party fails to file a memorandum in opposition within the
prescribed time limit. LCvR 7(b); see also Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294
(D.C. Cir. 2004). Whether to treat the motion as conceded under Local Rule 7(b) is
highly discretionary, and our Circuit Court has noted that "[w]here the district court relies
on the absence ofa response as a basis for treating the motion as conceded, [the D.C.
Circuit will] honor its enforcement of the rule." Twelve John Does v. District of
Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
2
In order for this Court to hold defendants in contempt, plaintiffs must prove
through clear and convincing evidence that the defendants violated a clear and
unambiguous provision of the Court's January 28 and March 5 Orders. Armstrong v.
Executive Office ofthe President, 1 F.3d 1274, 1289 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The Supreme
Court has made clear that "civil contempt sanctions, or those penalties designed to
compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable
through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice
and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt
is required." Int'/ Union v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994).
Here, with respect to the East Coast defendants, Platinum defendants and
Crawford defendants, plaintiffs have presented this Court with convincing and
uncontested evidence that those defendants have violated a clear and unambiguous order
of this Court. Further, having been afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard on the
issue of contempt, defendants have received all procedural safeguards available. Their
failure to respond to plaintiffs filing, therefore, is treated by this Court as a concession
under Local Rule 7(a).
With respect to the Butch defendants, plaintiffs provide the affidavit of Maurice
Osbourne, who declares that he was hired by the Butch defendants on at least one
occasion and was paid below the minimum wage, $5 for roughly two hours of work.
However, contrary to plaintiffs' conclusion that there is "no evidentiary dispute" because
the Butch defendants "have not provided any evidence to demonstrate their compliance"
with the Court's Order, Pl.'s Reply at 5, the Butch defendants clearly challenge the
3
credibility of the evidence offered against them, arguing that Mr. Osbourne was never, in
fact, hired by the Butch defendants, Butch defendants Opp'n to PI. Mot. at 2. This Court,
therefore, finds that with respect to the Butch defendants, the plaintiffs have not yet met
their burden, and an evidentiary hearing will be scheduled to address unresolved issues
raised by this motion.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the plaintiffs' motions and the record herein, it
is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs' May 12,2010 Motion for Civil Contempt [#185] with
respect to the East Coast defendants, Platinum defendants and Butch defendants is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs' June 14,2010 Motion for Civil Contempt [#189] with
respect to the Crawford defendants is GRANTED in part; and it is further
ORDERED the East Coast defendants, Platinum defendants and Crawford
defendants shall be held in contempt of this Court's clear and unambiguous order to pay
their employees the minimum wage required by the appropriate jurisdictions in which
they operate; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion with respect to the Butch defendants is
DENIED without prejudice.
4
FINALL Y, the Court reserves judgment and will schedule a hearing to address
what sanctions are appropriate with respect to the East Coast defendants, Platinum
defendants and Crawford defendants.
SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
5