Sanctions: Man sanctioned for violating family abuse protective order

Where a family abuse protective order generally prevented a man from having contact with his wife, but he used others to surveil her, he was found in civil contempt.

Background

Shaddy Fouad Moumen appeals a judgment finding him in civil contempt for violating a family abuse protective order, entering a new protective order, and awarding Melanie Jeannette Khoury her attorney’s fees and costs in the circuit court.

Waiver

Moumen claims that the circuit court’s decision to “prevent[] Moumen from cross-examining Khoury about statements made to Khoury’s counsel concerning the public nature of the webinar at issue” was error “because the attorney-client privilege had been waived by her counsel during in-court proceedings.” The court disagrees. Khoury’s counsel did not waive the attorney-client privilege because the privilege belongs to Khoury as the client—not to her counsel.

Moumen has not argued that any exception to this general rule applies in this case. Furthermore, the cases cited by Moumen to support the claim that Khoury’s counsel waived the attorney-client privilege do not stand for that proposition. Therefore, this court cannot conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion by ruling that Khoury’s counsel did not waive the attorney-client privilege

Exhibits

Moumen claims “[t]he trial court erred by prohibiting Moumen from introducing his Exhibits 7 and 8 because those exhibits were intended to impeach Khoury, which the Scheduling Order permitted.” Moumen alternatively argues that he already produced those exhibits in the prior district court case. Even if he did not timely produce the exhibits to the circuit court, Moumen argues that “there was no prejudice to Khoury.”

However the two challenged exhibits are not included in the record before this court on appeal. His failure to ensure the exhibits were included in the record deprives this court of the ability to determine whether the circuit court erred and whether Moumen suffered any prejudice as a result.

Contempt

Moumen asserts that “[t]he admissible evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to find Moumen in civil contempt of court for violating the JDR Protective Order.” Because Moumen argues there was insufficient evidence to find him in contempt, he also argues that the “award of attorney’s fees was improper.”

The record before this court on appeal supports the circuit court’s finding that Moumen disobeyed a court order. Almost immediately after the protective order was entered, Moumen and his girlfriend, Marcella, were discussing ways to evade its terms. Moumen told Marcella that, while he could not surveil Khoury, she could. Moumen asked multiple people to attend the webinar. Moumen used these individuals as personal private investigators to surveil Khoury during her webinar, in direct violation of the protective order.

New protective order

The circuit court erred in entering a new protective order under Code § 16.1-253.2(D). Existing case law and the statutory text clearly establish that Code § 16.1-253.2(D) applies to criminal proceedings—not to civil contempt proceedings. Moumen was neither charged with, nor convicted of, a criminal offense in this case, so Code § 16.1-253.2 does not apply. The circuit court also could not have issued a new protective order under its general authority to punish Moumen for his contempt of court or through some other means without additional process.

Jail calls

Moumen argues that Khoury’s counsel violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by receiving “attorney-client privileged jail calls” involving Moumen that Khoury’s counsel “knew or reasonably should have known” were privileged—and that Khoury’s counsel “failed to notify Moumen or his counsel of such calls or to return them to the sender, and further disseminated such information to Khoury for review.”

Moumen’s assignment of error concerning the jail calls simply fails to challenge any ruling of the circuit court as the circuit court had already lost jurisdiction over Moumen’s case by the time this issue arose. The ends-of-justice exception to Rule 5A:18, therefore, would not even be appropriate for this assignment of error because the circuit court did not ever issue any judgment or decision regarding Khoury’s alleged access to privileged information to which Moumen could now assign error on appeal. Consequently, this court simply cannot reach this assignment of error.

Affirmed in part, and reversed, vacated and remanded in part.

Moumen v. Khoury, Record No. 0132-24-4, May 6, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Beales). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Smith). Mikhail “Misha” Lopez (Lee Lopez Law, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant. John E. Byrnes (Kelly Byrnes Danker & Luu, PLLC, on brief), for appellee. VLW 025-7-110. 17 pp.