Doc
Post
E-signatures
PlayMaker
Second Chair
Verbatim
Sign in
→
Request access
Femhealth USA, Inc. v. Williams
(Middle District of Tenn. (M.D. TENN))
Case details
Full caption
FEMHEALTH USA, INC. v. RICKEY NELSON WILLIAMS, JR
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Middle District of Tennessee (M.D. TENN)
Disposition
Motion Granted
1
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
FOR
THE
MIDDLE
DISTRICT
OF
TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE
DIVISION
FEMHEALTH
USA,
INC.
d/b/a
CARAFEM,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICKEY
NELSON
WILLIAMS,
JR.,
et
al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO.
3:22-cv-00565
JUDGE
CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
FRENSLEY
MEMORANDUM
and
ORDER
Pending
before
the
Court
is
Plaintiff’s
Moti
on
for
an
Award
of
Damages.
(Doc.
No.
217).
Through
the
Motion,
Plaintiff
requests
the
Court
award
statutory
damages
in
the
amount
of
$5,000.00
in
accordance
with
the
Freedom
of
Access
to
Clinic
Entrances
Act
(“FACE
Act”),
18
U.S.C.
§
248.
Defendants
Rickey
Nelson
Willi
ams,
Jr.,
Bevelyn
Z.
Williams,
and
Edmee
Chavannes
(collectively
“Defendants”)
filed
a
response
in
opposition
(Doc.
No.
229),
Plaintiff
filed
a
reply
(Doc.
No.
230),
a
nd
Defendants
filed
a
sur-reply
(Doc.
No.
231).
For
the
reasons
stated
below,
Plaintiff’s
Motion
is
GRANTED
.
I.
PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
The
Court
previously
granted
summary
judg
ment
in
favor
of
Plaintiff
and
against
Defendants
on
Plaintiff’s
claim
for
vi
olation
of
the
FACE
Act,
and
fo
r
state
law
claims
of
trespass,
assault,
and
nuisance.
(
See
Order,
Doc.
No.
199,
adopting
Re
port
and
Recommendation,
Doc.
No.
195).
Defendants
filed
a
“Rule
60(b)
Motion
for
Relief
from
Judgment,”
and
motion
to
stay
enforcement
of
the
judgment,
bo
th
of
which
were
denied.
(
See
Doc.
Nos.
204,
207).
Defendants
filed
a
Notice
of
Appeal
and
Amended
Notice
of
Appeal.
(Doc.
Nos.
208,
214).
The
Sixth
Circuit
Case
3:22-cv-00565
Document
232
Filed
01/23/26
Page
1
of
4
PageID
#:
1989
2
dismissed
the
appeal
for
lack
of
appellate
jurisdiction.
(
See
Doc.
Nos.
222,
223).
Now
before
the
Court
is
Plaintiff’s
motion
for
an
award
of
stat
utory
damages
for
the
FACE
Act
claim.
(Doc.
No.
217).
II.
ANALYSIS
The
FACE
Act
provides
that,
“[i]n
any
action
under
subparagraph
(A),
the
court
may
award
appropriate
relief,
including
te
mporary,
preliminary
or
perm
anent
injunctive
relief
and
compensatory
and
punitive
damages,
as
well
as
th
e
costs
of
suit
and
reasona
ble
fees
for
attorneys
and
expert
witnesses.
With
respect
to
compensato
ry
damages,
the
plaintiff
may
elect,
at
any
time
prior
to
the
rendering
of
final
judgm
ent,
to
recover,
in
lieu
of
actu
al
damages,
an
award
of
statutory
damages
in
the
amount
of
$5,000
per
violation.”
18
U.
S.C.
§
248(c)(1)(B).
Pl
aintiff
has
elected
to
recover
statutory
damages
in
lieu
of
actual
damages
in
this
matter.
(
See
Miller
Declaration,
Doc.
No.
218-1).
Plaintiff
seeks
an
award
of
statutory
damages
in
the
amount
of
$5,000
based
on
the
grant
of
summary
judgment
in
its
favor
on
its
FACE
Act
claim.
Defendants
oppose
an
award
of
st
atutory
damages.
They
argue
that
courts
routinely
deny
statutory
damages
“when
the
plai
ntiff
fails
to
show
actual
harm
”
or
“when
the
defendants
acted
without
malice,
particularly
when
unrepresented.”
(Doc.
No.
229
at
4).
The
“legal
authority”
relied
upon
by
Defendants
consists
of
fa
bricated
statutory
language
and
quotations
from
nonexistent
cases.
(
Id
.
at
3-5).
When
Plaintiff
iden
tified
the
fabricated
authority,
rather
than
o
ffer
an
apology
or
explanation,
Defendants
responded
th
at
“Plaintiff
seek
s
to
distract
the
Court
with
irrelevant
case
citations,
accusations
of
dishonest
y,
and
procedural
threats.”
(Doc.
No.
231
at
1).
Defendants
then
argue
that
the
use
of
the
word
“may”
in
the
st
atute
means
that
a
stat
utory
damages
award
is
Case
3:22-cv-00565
Document
232
Filed
01/23/26
Page
2
of
4
PageID
#:
1990
3
discretionary
and
that
the
Court
should
exercise
its
discretion
not
to
award
damages
because
of
“service
failures”
and
“violati
on
of
due
process
standards.”
1
(
See
Doc.
Nos.
229,
231).
Defendants’
fabrication
of
lega
l
authority
is
troubling.
All
pe
rsons
before
the
Court
have
an
obligation
to
ensure
that
the
legal
and
factual
representations
in
their
filings
are
accurate
and
failure
to
do
so
results
in
an
ineffective
legal
argument
and
wastes
the
ti
me
and
resources
of
the
Court
and
opposing
counsel.
Defendants
are
cauti
oned
that
citation
to
fa
bricated
caselaw
may
result
in
sanctions.
For
purposes
of
the
pending
motion,
those
citations
and
arguments
are
stricken
from
the
response
and
have
not
been
considered.
Defendants’
arguments
about
“ser
vice
issues”
and
“violation
of
due
process
standards”
are
unfounded.
With
regard
to
the
inst
ant
motion,
Defendants’
assertion
that
they
had
no
notice
of
or
opportunity
to
respond
is
belied
by
the
record
and
their
response
and
sur-reply
to
the
motion.
(
See
Pl.
Ex.
A,
Doc.
230-1
(tracking
details
for
serv
ice
of
motion);
Defs.
Resp.,
Doc.
No.
229;
Defs.
Sur-reply,
Doc.
No.
231).
Plaintiff’s
service
of
othe
r
filings
also
raises
no
due
process
concerns.
The
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
allow
for
se
rvice
by
mailing
the
moti
on
or
other
filing
to
a
person’s
“last
known
address”
and
provide
that
service
is
complete
upon
mailing.
See
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
5(b)(2)(C).
The
record
indicates
that
servic
e
was
made
to
Defendants’
addresses
of
record
provided
to
the
Court.
Despite
some
mail
to
Bevelyn
Williams
and
Ch
avannes
being
returned
undelivered,
each
of
them
received
actual
notice
of
the
filings
at
issue
and,
despite
knowing
that
they
had
not
received
filings
and
Orders,
neither
claims
to
have
provided
the
Court
or
Plaintiff
with
an
updated
address.
More
over,
Defendants
concede
that
fi
lings
were
delivered
to
the
1
Defendants
also
accuse
Plaintiff
of
retaliato
ry
litigation
conduct,
misrepresenting
a
motion
to
modify
a
case
management
order
as
unop
posed,
and
argue
Plaintiff’s
request
for
attorney’s
fees
and
interest
is
premature.
(
See
Doc.
No.
229
at
5-6).
A
review
of
the
reco
rd
shows
the
accusations
concerning
Plaintiff’s
litigation
conduct
to
be
unfounded.
No
request
for
attorney’s
fees
is
curre
ntly
before
the
Court.
However,
Plaintiff
states
that
it
intends
to
seek
attorney’s
fees
after
the
entry
of
final
judgment
in
accordance
with
Local
Rule
54.01(b)(1).
Case
3:22-cv-00565
Document
232
Filed
01/23/26
Page
3
of
4
PageID
#:
1991
4
mailroom
of
their
apartment
comp
lex.
(Doc.
No.
231
at
2).
Defenda
nts
argue
that
Plaintiff
should
have
ensured
that
they
retrieved
the
mailings
fro
m
the
mail
room
or
otherw
ise
provided
notice
of
the
mailings,
but
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Proc
edure
and
due
process
im
pose
no
such
obligation.
Because
Plaintiff
was
awarded
summary
judgm
ent
on
its
FACE
Act
claims,
Plaintiff
is
entitled
to
an
award
of
statutor
y
damages
in
the
amount
of
$5,000,
for
which
Defendants
are
jointly
and
severally
liable.
See
United
States
v.
Gregg
,
226
F.3d
253,
258
(3d
Cir.
2000)
(holding
that
statutory
damages
are
imposed
pe
r
violation
and
jointly
and
se
verally
among
the
defendants
who
participated
in
the
blockade).
III.
CONCLUSION
For
the
reasons
stated
above,
Plaintiff’s
Motion
for
Award
of
Damages
(Doc.
No.
217)
is
GRANTED
.
Final
judgment
will
ente
r
by
separate
Order.
It
is
so
ORDERED
.
_______________________________________
WILLIAM
L.
CAMPBELL,
JR.
CHIEF
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
JUDGE
Case
3:22-cv-00565
Document
232
Filed
01/23/26
Page
4
of
4
PageID
#:
1992
Provenance
Know exactly where this document came from.
Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.
Request access