Marjan Vakili, et al. v. Charles F. Stephenson, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________________
No. 11-12305
_____________________________
D. C. Docket No. 2:08-cv-00276-VEH
MARJAN VAKILI, and
FAITH PROPERTIES, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CHARLES F. STEPHENSON,
BROOKESTONE PLACE, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________________________
(July 25, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, and RESTANI ,*
Judge.
Honorable Jane A. Restani, United State Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by*
designation.
Case: 11-12305 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
This state-law diversity case arises out of the defendants’ attempts to collect
debts owed by Kevin Vakili. Plaintiffs Marjan Vakili (Mr. Vakili’s wife) and
Faith Properties sued several defendants: Appellees Charles F. Stephenson,
Providence Place, LLC, and Brookestone Place, LLC (“Defendants”); and two
non-Appellee defendants. Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the
Stephenson Parties violated Alabama law by wrongfully foreclosing on some of
the Vakilis’ properties. Defendants cross- and counterclaimed, alleging that
Plaintiffs and Mr. Vakili (who had been joined as a third-party defendant, along
with Sina Jashfar, Mrs. Vakili’s son) fraudulently transferred property to avoid
Mr. Vakili’s creditors.
After discovery, the district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims brought by Plaintiffs against
Defendants. The district court entered final judgment in favor of Defendants and
charged attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiffs, plus Mr. Vakili and Mr. Jashfar.
From a study of the case, including the oral arguments made to us, we conclude
that no reversible error has been presented.
2
Case: 11-12305 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

Plaintiffs and Mr. Vakili ask the Court to reverse three of the district1
court’s decisions in this case: (1) the grant of summary judgment for Defendants
because the “unclean hands” doctrine barred Plaintiffs from seeking equitable
relief; (2) an order compelling production of certain communications between the
Vakilis and their lawyer; and (3) the award under the Alabama Litigation
Accountability Act of attorney’s fees and costs to Defendants.
We affirm all of the appealed-from decisions of the district court: the district
court did not abuse its discretion by applying the “unclean hands” doctrine, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by compelling production of the attorney-
client communications, and the district court made no error in charging attorney’s
fees and costs to Plaintiffs and to Mr. Vakili for claims and defenses asserted
without substantial justification.
AFFIRMED.
The Notice of Appeal and other documents filed with the Court establish that Mr. Jashfar1
did not appeal the district court’s decisions.
3
Case: 11-12305 Date Filed: 07/25/2012 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --