George S. Thanos v. District of Columbia and District of Columbia v. George S. Thanos ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
    Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the
    Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound
    volumes go to press.
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
    Nos. 12-CV-324 & 12-CV-325
    GEORGE S. THANOS, APPELLANT,
    V.
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, APPELLEE,
    AND
    12-CV-350 & 12-CV-411
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CROSS-APPELLANT,
    V.
    GEORGE S. THANOS, CROSS-APPELLEE,
    &
    VIP THERAPY, INC., ET AL., CROSS-APPELLEES.
    Appeals from the Superior Court
    of the District of Columbia
    (CAB 6897-08 & CAB 856-11)
    (Hon. Brook Hedge, Trial Judge)
    (Argued January 22, 2014                            Decided December 31, 2014)
    Thomas T. Heslep, for appellant/cross-appellee.
    Stacy L. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Irvin B. Nathan,
    Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and
    2
    Donna M. Murasky, Deputy Solicitor General, were on the brief, for
    appellee/cross-appellant District of Columbia.
    Nathan Baney for cross-appellees VIP Therapy, Inc., and Deborah
    Poindexter. J. Chapman Peterson was on the brief for cross-appellees VIP
    Therapy, Inc., and Deborah Poindexter.
    Before BECKWITH and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and BELSON, Senior
    Judge.
    BECKWITH, Associate Judge: At the conclusion of a one-day trial, the trial
    court in this case found that property owned by appellant George Thanos and
    leased by VIP Therapy, Inc. (VIP), constituted a prostitution-related nuisance
    pursuant to the Drug or Prostitution-Related Nuisance Abatement Act, D.C. Code
    § 42-3101 et seq. (2012 Repl.).1 The court issued a permanent injunction and
    assessed attorney‟s fees and costs against Mr. Thanos, VIP, and VIP‟s owner,
    Deborah Poindexter, but denied the District‟s request for income disgorgement and
    damages.     Mr. Thanos appeals the issuance of the permanent injunction and
    imposition of attorney‟s fees and the District cross-appeals the denial of its request
    for income disgorgement. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the court‟s
    permanent injunction and attorney‟s fees rulings and we reverse the trial court‟s
    conclusion that it did not have authority to order income disgorgement and remand
    for further proceedings on that count.
    1
    All subsequent D.C. Code citations are to the 2012 Replacement volume.
    3
    I.   Background
    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.
    II.   Analysis
    The Drug or Prostitution-Related Nuisance Abatement Act gives the District
    authority—after making a reasonable attempt to notify the owner of the property—
    to file an action in the Superior Court to abate, enjoin, and prevent a prostitution-
    related nuisance when the District has reason to believe that such a nuisance exists.
    D.C. Code § 42-3102. A prostitution-related nuisance is defined as “[a]ny real
    property, in whole or in part, used or intended to be used to facilitate
    prostitution . . . that has an adverse impact on the community” or “any real
    property, in whole or in part, used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation
    of” various District of Columbia anti-prostitution statutes. D.C. Code § 42-3101
    (5)(B)-(C). The statute clarifies that, for the purposes of this Act, “adverse impact”
    means the presence of at least one of several conditions. Those relevant here
    include:
    (C) Increased volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic
    to and from the property that is related to prostitution[;]
    (G) Investigative . . . actions relating to prostitution by
    undercover law enforcement officers at or near the
    property;
    9
    (H) Arrests of persons on or near the property for
    criminal conduct relating to prostitution[; or]
    (I) Search warrants served or executed at the property
    relating to prostitution.
    D.C. Code § 42-3101 (1). If the court finds the existence of a prostitution-related
    nuisance, the Act specifies that it “shall enter an order permanently enjoining,
    abating, and preventing the continuance or recurrence of the nuisance.” D.C. Code
    § 42-3110 (a). Such an order may include per diem damages for each day the
    nuisance is unabated after the date the defendant had actual or constructive
    knowledge of the nuisance, and may also include relief in the form of attorney‟s
    fees and costs and “any other remedy which the court, in its discretion, deems
    appropriate.” D.C. Code §§ 42-3110 (b), 42-3111. In fashioning such an order,
    the court “shall consider, without limitation,” several factors, including:
    (1) The extent and duration of the . . . prostitution-related
    nuisance and the severity of the adverse impact on the
    community;
    (5) The number of times the owner or tenant has been
    notified of . . . prostitution-related problems at the
    property;
    (6) Prior efforts or lack of efforts by the defendant to
    abate the drug or prostitution-related nuisance;
    (8) The costs incurred by the jurisdiction . . . in
    investigating, correcting, or attempting to correct the . . .
    prostitution-related nuisance;
    10
    (9) Whether the . . . prostitution-related nuisance was
    continuous or recurring;
    (10) The economic or financial benefit accruing or likely
    to accrue to the defendant as a result of the conditions
    constituting the . . . prostitution-related nuisance; or
    (11) Any other factor the court deems relevant.
    D.C. Code § 42-3110 (c).       Although the Act “shall be construed liberally in
    accordance with its remedial purposes,” and “the availability of other remedies
    under the law or other equitable relief” is not limited, the statute makes clear that
    “[t]his action is civil in nature and none of its provisions should be interpreted as
    punishment.” D.C. Code §§ 42-3113, 42-3114.
    A.     Permanent Injunction
    In its order granting the District‟s request for a permanent injunction, the
    trial court considered the relevant factors under the Act and noted the “pervasive
    nature of the activity and defendants‟ knowledge” as well as Mr. Thanos‟s
    “repeated disregard of the law” and “creativity” in flouting it. The court concluded
    that “wide-ranging injunctive relief is necessary to ensure that the nuisance
    remains abated” and fashioned a permanent injunction requiring that any lease or
    sale of the building be preapproved by the District and that Mr. Thanos rent only to
    businesses that do not involve touching, other than to a licensed physician.
    11
    Mr. Thanos argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion and
    committed legal error in issuing the permanent injunction.7 He contends that the
    court erroneously granted the permanent injunction because the District possessed
    “unclean hands” in that it never attempted to revoke the massage therapy license of
    VIP or any of its employees, owners, or operators. He emphasizes, too, that none
    of the District‟s arrests led to any conviction. While the District could have
    attempted to solve the nuisance through more traditional means, the Act provides
    the District with an additional tool to combat prostitution. Nothing in the Act
    requires the District to revoke any licenses or convict anyone for injunctive relief
    to be proper. The Act specifically provides that “[a] previous conviction of the
    defendant, or any tenant or owner of the property, shall not be required to
    demonstrate a . . . prostitution-related nuisance.” D.C. Code § 42-3106. Mr.
    Thanos nonetheless argues that “[u]nder a rational theory of statutory
    7
    Mr. Thanos also argues that the Temporary Restraining Order was
    improperly granted, but because the court subsequently entered a permanent
    injunction against Mr. Thanos, his challenges to the TRO are moot. See Yates v.
    District of Columbia, 
    868 A.2d 866
    (D.C. 2005) (holding that challenges to a
    preliminary injunction become moot upon the entry of a permanent injunction).
    Similarly, we find no merit in his contention that the permanent injunction was
    improper because the trial court failed to hold a hearing on the District‟s requests
    for a preliminary injunction within ten business days as required by D.C. Code §
    42-3104 (a). Failure to hold a preliminary injunction hearing as required would
    only affect the propriety of a preliminary injunction, which Mr. Thanos admits was
    never issued against him.
    12
    interpretation,” the exclusion of a conviction requirement for the defendant or any
    tenant or owner of the property “cannot possibly mean that no one need be
    convicted in order to trigger this statute,” but rather “[t]he fact that these specific
    people are excluded, must mean that there must be some sort of conviction of
    someone, if arrests are the only evidence of a nuisance.” (emphasis in original).
    We disagree. When interpreting a statute, our task is “to ascertain and give
    effect to the legislative intent and to give legislative words their natural meaning.”
    In re D.R., 
    96 A.3d 45
    , 49 (D.C. 2014) (citation omitted). Section 42-3106, which
    is entitled “Conviction not required,” states that the District can obtain relief under
    the Act without first convicting any of the individuals one expects to be involved
    in a property-based nuisance—defendants (for example, landlords), property
    owners, or tenants. It is counterintuitive to suggest that this explicit rejection of a
    conviction requirement for the most likely participants in a nuisance demonstrates
    that the Council intended to create—but chose not to do so expressly—a contrary
    requirement that the District must convict another individual who is not likely to be
    involved in a nuisance.
    Mr. Thanos also challenges the entry of the permanent injunction by
    arguing that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, no “nuisance” with the
    requisite “adverse impact on the community” can be found. The record contains
    13
    ample evidence, however, upon which the trial court could conclude both that a
    nuisance existed and that it adversely affected the community as defined by D.C.
    Code § 42-3101.
    To find a nuisance under the Act, the court must conclude that the property
    is “in whole or in part, used, or intended to be used, to facilitate prostitution” and
    “has an adverse impact on the community.” D.C. Code § 42-3101 (5)(B) (2012
    Repl.). This standard consists of two separate inquiries. The first inquiry—
    whether the property is used or intended to be used in whole or in part to facilitate
    prostitution—is not defined by the statute8 and is thus interpreted according to its
    “ordinary meaning.” Hood v. United States, 
    28 A.3d 553
    , 559 (D.C. 2011). Here
    the record contains considerable evidence that Mr. Thanos‟s property was at least
    being “used in part” by VIP for prostitution—the testimony of several undercover
    officers regularly receiving solicitations for prostitution at the property, coupled
    with the sizeable stash of both used and new condoms found on the premises,
    belies Mr. Thanos‟s argument to the contrary.
    The second inquiry is whether the property use has an adverse impact on the
    community. The Act makes clear that even one enumerated condition is sufficient
    8
    This inquiry is neither guided nor bound by the factors in § 42-3101 (1),
    which relate solely to “adverse impact.”
    14
    to support a finding of adverse impact to the community. D.C. Code § 42-3101 (1)
    (“„Adverse impact‟ means the presence of any one or more of the following
    conditions . . . .”).9 Evidence of several of those conditions appeared in the record,
    including “[i]nvestigative . . . actions relating to prostitution by undercover law
    enforcement officers at or near the property,” “[a]rrests of persons on or near the
    property for criminal conduct relating to prostitution,” and “[s]earch warrants
    served or executed at the property relating to prostitution.” D.C. Code § 42-3101
    (1) (G)-(I). The trial court also noted that Mr. Thanos hired a security guard to
    watch over the property after the massage business left because “customers were
    banging on the door in the middle of the night.” That finding demonstrates the
    existence of another enumerated condition—“[i]ncreased volume of vehicular and
    pedestrian traffic to and from the property that is related to prostitution. . . .” D.C.
    9
    Mr. Thanos argues that this literal reading of the statute produces an
    “absurd result” because the court could find adverse impact based on just one
    instance of officer investigation into prostitution, or just one arrest for prostitution,
    or just one approach by a person seeking to engage in prostitution. But this
    concern reflects his conflation of the two parts to the nuisance definition. Adverse
    impact alone is insufficient to support a judgment of liability: the court still must
    have made a threshold factual determination that the property is used for
    prostitution in whole or in part, and—although we do not attempt to pinpoint
    where that line falls in this case—one investigation or arrest or approach is
    undoubtedly insufficient evidence to support such a finding.
    Furthermore, a trial court is not required to find adverse impact solely
    because one factor is present; the ultimate decision still lies in the court‟s
    discretion.
    15
    Code § 42-3101 (1)(C).     The trial court committed no error in concluding that a
    prostitution-related nuisance existed on Mr. Thanos‟s property and that it adversely
    impacted the community pursuant to the statute.10
    Lastly, Mr. Thanos states that the permanent injunction should not have been
    issued because “if there was a nuisance, it had already been abated” and he “had
    shown no tendency to ignore any Court Order.” Mr. Thanos made the same
    argument below, and we echo the trial court‟s response: “[T]he record and the
    Court‟s Findings of Fact are replete with examples . . . [showing] that defendant
    Thanos has flagrantly and arrogantly chosen to ignore the law, despite repeated
    notice that prostitution activities were occurring on his premises. . . . The evidence
    is overwhelming that [Mr.] Thanos will not abide by the law if left to his own
    word.” These findings are not clearly erroneous and we therefore reject Mr.
    Thanos‟s contention that a permanent injunction was unnecessary to abate the
    10
    Mr. Thanos argues, in the alternative, that if the facts and circumstances
    of the case do allow for a finding of a “nuisance” with the requisite “adverse
    impact on the community,” then the Act is unenforceable as an unconstitutional
    taking of Mr. Thanos‟s property under both substantive and procedural due process
    pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
    Constitution. This contention has no merit. See Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council,
    
    505 U.S. 1003
    , 1022 (1992) (recognizing “a long line of this Court‟s cases
    sustaining against Due Process and Takings Clause challenges the State‟s use of its
    „police powers‟ to enjoin a property owner from activities akin to public
    nuisances”).
    16
    nuisance and prevent its recurrence. See Hinton v. Sealander Brokerage Co., 
    917 A.2d 95
    , 101 (D.C. 2007) (on appeal from a bench trial, “[t]he trial court‟s findings
    of fact will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous”).
    B.     Attorney’s Fees
    Pursuant to D.C. Code § 42-3110 (b)(1), which authorizes the assessment of
    “reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party,” the trial court decided
    that it was “reasonable to order that the defendants pay the prevailing party‟s fees
    and costs in this matter given the ongoing nature of the prostitution-related
    nuisance, the parties‟ knowledge of the nuisance, and the distinct lack of efforts on
    behalf of all defendants to abate the nuisance as the record so amply
    demonstrates.” Using the well-established Laffey matrix,11 the court awarded the
    District $76,451.93 against Mr. Thanos. Absent “a very strong showing of abuse
    of discretion,” we may not set aside the trial court‟s fee award. Steadman v.
    Steadman, 
    514 A.2d 1196
    , 1200 (D.C. 1986).
    11
    See Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 
    572 F. Supp. 354
    , 371 (D.D.C.
    1983), rev’d in part on other grounds, 
    746 F.2d 4
    (1984) (hourly rates for attorneys
    practicing law in the D.C. metropolitan area could be categorized by years in
    practice and adjusted yearly for inflation). The “Laffey matrix” is compiled yearly
    by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney‟s Office and is regularly used
    to calculate attorney‟s fees when there is a statutory entitlement. Lively v. Flexible
    Packaging Ass’n, 
    930 A.2d 984
    , 990 (D.C. 2007).
    17
    Mr. Thanos‟s primary complaint on appeal is that the District should not
    have been eligible for attorney‟s fees because it was represented by a Special
    Assistant Attorney General—a private lawyer acting in a pro bono capacity for the
    District. Relying on Link v. District of Columbia, 
    650 A.2d 929
    , 934 (D.C. 1994)
    (holding that attorney‟s fees are calculated no differently for nonprofit legal service
    providers than they are for private attorneys), the trial court awarded the District
    fees because “[t]he District‟s Special Counsel was akin to a nonprofit legal service
    provider.” Mr. Thanos contends that the rationale for awarding attorney‟s fees in
    Link and related cases—that such reimbursement allows for the continued
    availability of free legal services despite the fact that no fees are actually
    charged—is absent here. Because the District‟s pro bono representation was in aid
    of a “powerful government entity” and the private provider will neither receive the
    fees nor be “encouraged or enabled” by them, as in the case of free legal services
    for poor people, Mr. Thanos argues that such fees, as applied here, amount to
    “punitive . . . back door damages.”
    In Link, we reversed the trial court‟s decision to award only a token $100 in
    attorney‟s fees to Neighborhood Legal Services because that service provider
    offered representation free of cost and therefore the fees would simply add to the
    nonprofit‟s coffers rather than alleviate the client‟s burden. 
    Link, 650 A.2d at 934
    .
    We explained our rationale for imposing the fees:
    18
    When free legal services are provided there may be no
    direct barrier to the courtroom door, but if no fees are
    awarded, the burden of the costs is placed on the
    organization     providing     the    services,   and  it
    correspondingly may decline to bring such suits and
    decide to concentrate its limited resources elsewhere.
    
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks and citations omitted). We disagree with Mr. Thanos
    that this rationale is inapplicable to the case at bar, where the District and its pro
    bono assistant brought an action in the public interest to abate a prostitution-related
    nuisance. That the District is a government entity and not an impoverished citizen
    is legally irrelevant to the question of attorney‟s fees.     Had the District been
    represented by a salaried Assistant Attorney General, it would have been entitled to
    attorney‟s fees at a reasonable market rate based on the lodestar method (“the
    number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate,”
    Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 
    672 F.2d 42
    , 51 (D.C. Cir. 1982)),
    not based on the attorney‟s actual salary. D.C. Code § 42-3110 (b)(1) (“Any order
    issued under this section may include . . . [a]ssessment of reasonable attorney fees
    and costs to the prevailing party.”); see Neal v. Honeywell, Inc., 
    191 F.3d 827
    , 833
    (7th Cir. 1999) (“The difference between the actual-cost approach and a
    „reasonable cost‟ approach is considerable.”).       In this case, community-based
    organizations and government entities alike are empowered to bring nuisance-
    abatement actions. D.C. Code § 42-3102 (a). Whether the prevailing plaintiff is
    the U.S. Attorney‟s Office, the District of Columbia Office of the Attorney
    19
    General, or a community-based group, that plaintiff is entitled to reasonable
    attorney‟s fees. It would be inconsistent with the holdings in Link and Henderson
    to conclude otherwise, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing
    reasonable fees and costs against Mr. Thanos despite the unusual nature of the
    District‟s representation.
    Because we conclude that the attorney‟s fees awarded against Mr. Thanos
    were reasonable, we reject the contention that the fees are effectively an award of
    damages. We also reject Mr. Thanos‟s argument that the attorney‟s fees the court
    awarded against him were too high because the award included the number of
    hours spent on the District‟s nonmeritorious claim for damages. In awarding the
    full amount of fees nonetheless, the court noted, “[e]ven though the Court did not
    award damages, the Court is awarding all fees and costs because the factual
    development of the monetary amounts received by the defendants was necessary
    for an analysis of § 42-3110 (c)(10) when considering injunctive relief.” We have
    recognized that “it is often impossible to distinguish hours spent on individual
    claims that are ultimately unsuccessful from time spent on the overall successful
    litigation.” Natural Motion by Sandra, Inc. v. District of Columbia Comm’n on
    Human Rights, 
    726 A.2d 194
    , 198 (D.C. 1999) (citing Hensley v. Eckhart, 
    461 U.S. 424
    , 435 (1983)). Therefore, “[t]he fee award should not be reduced simply
    because the [party] failed to prevail on every contention raised in the lawsuit.” 
    Id. 20 (quoting
    Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435
    ). Thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion
    by awarding the District the full amount of fees it claimed.12
    C.      Income Disgorgement
    The District cross-appeals the trial court‟s denial of its request for
    disgorgement of both Mr. Thanos‟s and VIP‟s revenue and income derived from
    the prostitution-related nuisance.13 In the Superior Court, the District sought the
    money Mr. Thanos received from VIP for rent and otherwise, as well as the gross
    amount VIP received for providing “massages.”14 The District argues that it is
    entitled to income disgorgement under § 42-3110 (7), the “catch-all provision” of
    12
    To the extent Mr. Thanos argues that the District should not be entitled to
    attorney‟s fees because the District‟s various actions were procedurally defective,
    because the court failed to find a nuisance with the requisite “adverse impact,” and
    because the court failed to hold a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion
    within ten days, we have rejected these arguments.
    13
    VIP has appeared as a cross-appellee on this claim.
    14
    The District also sought per diem damages in the amount of $100 per day
    pursuant to D.C. Code § 42-3111, which provides that “the plaintiffs may request,
    and the court in its discretion may order damages for each day the . . . prostitution-
    related nuisance is unabated since the defendant first received notice. . . .” The
    court interpreted the statute to require that per diem damages be compensatory, not
    punitive. See D.C. Code § 42-3113 (“This action is civil in nature and none of its
    provisions should be interpreted as punishment.”). Finding that “[t]here is no
    evidence in the record as to how the $100 a day is tied to compensating for a
    specific harm, including the public interest, other than assessing what might be
    viewed as nominal punitive damages,” the court denied the District‟s request, and
    the District does not appeal that ruling.
    21
    the statute, which provides for “[a]ny other remedy which the court, in its
    discretion, deems appropriate.”      D.C. Code § 42-3110 (7).         The trial court
    considered this argument in light of the entire statutory scheme and concluded that
    it did not have the authority to impose income disgorgement for several reasons:
    because the Act is focused on abatement and prevention, not punishment or
    compensation, because a different provision—§ 42-3110 (b)(4)—provides for the
    capturing of rents for a certain period of time in order to accomplish abatement and
    specifies when and why rents can be escrowed, and because the D.C. Council
    made its intentions clear in § 42-3113 that “[t]his action is civil in nature and none
    of its provisions should be interpreted as punishment.” Although the decision to
    grant or deny equitable relief is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court,
    see D.C. Code § 42-3110 (b), “[j]udicial discretion must . . . be founded upon
    correct legal principles and a trial court abuses its discretion when it rests its
    conclusions on incorrect legal standards.” In re J.D.C., 
    594 A.2d 70
    , 75 (D.C.
    1991) (internal citation omitted).
    We disagree that the statute does not authorize income disgorgement as a
    matter of law. While the trial court was correct in concluding that it could not
    award damages as a legal remedy beyond those authorized in § 42-3111, it does
    have the broad authority to fashion equitable relief for the purposes of enjoining,
    abating, and preventing the continuation or recurrence of a prostitution-related
    22
    nuisance. See D.C. Code § 42-3110. Although the District itself referred to
    income disgorgement as damages in its request, income disgorgement is widely
    viewed as an equitable remedy.15 So v. Suchanek, 
    670 F.3d 1304
    , 1310 (D.C. Cir.
    2012) (“Disgorgement is an equitable remedy entrusted to the sound discretion of
    the district court.”); Cnty. of Essex v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 
    891 A.2d 600
    , 609
    (N.J. 2006) (“It is obvious that the County‟s cause of action for unjust
    enrichment/disgorgement is an equitable claim.”); King Mountain Condo. Ass’n v.
    Gundlach, 
    425 So. 2d 569
    , 572 (Fla. App. 1982) (“[T]he disgorgement of secret
    profits . . . is an equitable remedy. . . .”). Instead of compensating victims, as
    damages do, income disgorgement serves to prevent unjust enrichment. Cnty. of
    
    Essex, 891 A.2d at 609
    (the equitable remedy of disgorgement is “grounded in the
    theory that a wrongdoer should not profit from its wrongdoing regardless of
    whether the innocent party suffered any damages”); United States v. Lane Labs-
    15
    VIP argues that the District, having asserted its right to income
    disgorgement under a theory of damages below, cannot rely on an alternative
    theory on appeal. See Estate of Taylor v. Lilienfield, 
    744 A.2d 1032
    , 1035 (D.C.
    2000) (“Parties may not assert one theory at trial and another theory on appeal.”).
    But the District specifically cited § 42-3110—dealing exclusively with equitable
    remedies and not with damages—in its request for income disgorgement.
    Although the District called the money it was seeking “damages,” it plainly sought
    income disgorgement according to the framework laid out in § 42-3110, analyzing
    the factors to consider when fashioning a “remedy” under that section. The
    equitable remedy theory asserted by the District is therefore not novel and is
    permissible at this stage of litigation.
    23
    USA, Inc., 
    324 F. Supp. 2d 547
    , 576 (D.N.J. 2004) (“Disgorgement differs from
    restitution in that it . . . does not turn on compensating the victims.”). Under § 42-
    3110, which relates to equitable remedies (as opposed to § 42-3111, which relates
    to damages), the court does have the authority to order income disgorgement—not
    as a punishment or as victim compensation, but to deprive Mr. Thanos and VIP of
    their ill-gotten revenues on the theory that the cross-appellees should not be
    permitted to retain the spoils from a prostitution-related nuisance.
    The trial court‟s authority to award disgorgement is not unlimited, however.
    Disgorgement still must be “necessary” in the specific case at issue to “enjoin[],
    abat[e], and prevent[] the continuance or recurrence of the nuisance.” D.C. Code §
    42-3110 (a).16 Moreover, disgorgement assessed under the Act cannot be punitive
    in nature. D.C. Code § 42-3113. See also Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Blatt, 
    583 F.2d 1325
    , 1335 (5th Cir. 1978) (“The court‟s power to order disgorgement extends
    only to the amount with interest by which the defendant profited from his
    wrongdoing. Any further sum would constitute a penalty assessment.”). And,
    specifically relevant to Mr. Thanos in this case, disgorgement under the catch-all
    16
    As the trial court recognized, it is not enough to say that “any monetary
    award will help abate crime because it takes the profit out of the activity.”
    Disgorgement is only “necessary” as a deterrent to prevent a recurring nuisance if
    there is factual support for a conclusion that the nuisance would recur without
    disgorgement.
    24
    provision in subsection (c)(11) cannot be used to collect rental income from the
    property—the statute lays out specific procedures for collecting rental income in
    subsections (c)(4) and (5), and a court cannot use the general catch-all provision to
    circumvent the Council‟s explicit instructions. See Odeniran v. Hanley Wood,
    LLC, 
    985 A.2d 421
    , 427 (D.C. 2009) (“Although the expressio unius maxim . . .
    must be applied with a considerable measure of caution, it is useful where the
    context shows that the draftsmen‟s mention of one thing . . . does really
    necessarily, or at least reasonably, imply the preclusion of alternatives.”) (internal
    citation and quotation marks omitted).
    The trial court noted in a footnote that “on this factual record,” disgorgement
    would have been “more punitive in nature,” but that conclusion appears ultimately
    to have been used to buttress its assertion that it lacked the statutory authority to
    order disgorgement. Having clarified the scope of the trial court‟s authority, we
    remand to the trial court to determine, within its discretion, whether disgorgement
    is an appropriate equitable—and not punitive—remedy that is “necessary” to
    enjoin, abate, and prevent the continuance or recurrence of the nuisance under the
    circumstances of this case.17
    17
    Nothing in this opinion should be construed to suggest that disgorgement
    is or is not appropriate on the facts of this case.
    25
    III.   Conclusion
    For the reasons above, we reverse the trial court‟s denial of the District‟s
    request for income disgorgement and remand for a determination whether such a
    remedy is appropriate in this case and if so, in what amount. We affirm the trial
    court‟s findings and conclusions on all other grounds.
    So ordered.