Gerald Roy, Roy's Construction Inc., Roy's Development, LLC. v. Thomas Poleon (a/k/a Thomas Lima) and Nuranjali, LLC

• Court: Superior Court of The Virgin Islands
• Decided: January 25, 2021
• Docket: ST-13-CV-525
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

GERALD ROY ROY’S CONSTRUCTION ) INC ROY S DEVELOPMENT LLC and 17 31 ) Case No ST 2013 CV 00525 FRENCHMAN S BAY LLC ) ) ACTION FOR BREACH OF Plaintiffs ) CONTRACT FRAUD V ) UNJUST ENRICHMENT ) QUANTUM MERUIT THOMAS POLEON (a/k/a THOMAS LIMA) ) PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL PARCEL 17 31 ESTATE FRENCHMAN S ) CONVERSION BREACH BAY NO 4 FRENCHMAN S BAY QUARTER ) OF FIDUCIARY DUTY ST THOMAS USVI and NURANJALI LLC ) DECLARATORY ) JUDGMENT QUIET Defendants ) TITLE ACCOUNTING ) AND DISSOLUTION

2021 VI Super 7U

MEMORANDUM OPINION

111 THIS MATTER before the Court is Memorandum of Costs 1 filed by

Defendant Nuranjali, LLC (“Nuranjali”) Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant

Nuranjali’s Memorandum of Costs (“response to memorandum of costs”) was filed by

Plaintiffs Gerald Roy, Roy’s Construction, Inc , Roys Development, LLC and 17 31

Frenchman’s Bay, LLC (“Roy”) 2

‘12 Nuranjali originally filed its memorandum of costs on December 20, 2016 See

Roy 0 Poleon Case No ST 13 CV 525 2018 VI LEXIS 136 at *1 (VI Super Ct

1 This memorandum of costs was filed June 14, 2019 ’ The response to memorandum of costs was filed June 25, 2019 Roy V Poleon, et a1 Case No ST 2013 CV 00525 Memorandum Oplnion Cite as 2021 VI Super 7U Page 2 of 6

Dec 14 2018) (unpublished) On October 23 2017 the Court d1rected Roy to file a

response to the memorandum by November 30, 2017, but Roy dld not do so See Ld at

*1 2 The Court filed an opinion granting Nuranjali’s attorney’s fees and costs, with

a few deductions, on December 17, 2018 3 See Ld at *9 Afterwards, Roy advised the

Court that he was never served With the memorandum of costs and moved the Court

to vacate the judgment, which it did

113 Nuranjali refiled the memorandum of costs on June 14, 2019, and Roy filed a

response

qJ4 In the response, Roy argues “that this Court’s analysis in the December 2018

memorandum opinion correctly identifies improper billing entries” in Nuranjali’s

memorandum of costs Roy contends that Nuranjali refiled “an identical”

memorandum on June 14, 2019, and therefore, the Court’s analysis applies here, too

115 “Above and beyond the thorough analysis already provided by this Court, [Roy]

seek[s] a downward departure from the amount of allowable costs and fees ” Roy

argues that he seeks this departure “based upon the long held position of Virgin

Islands law that the policy behind [t1tle 5 § 541 of the Virgin Islands Code] is not

necessarlly one of total indemnification, but only to award a prevailing party a fair

and reasonable portion of attorney’s fees ” See Bevans v TrLumpho, 17 V I 144,

148 (VI Super Ct 1980) (citing Lucerne Inv Co 1) Estate Belvedere Inc 411 F 2d

1205 1207 (3d Cir 1969)‘ and Vztex Mfg Co v Wheatley 70 F R D 588 591 (D VI

3 The opinion was entered on December 17, 2018 Roy v Poleon, et a1 Case No ST 2013 CV 00525 Memorandum Oplnlon Cite as 2021 VI Super 7U Page 3 0f 6

1976)) Roy argues that “one of the factors taken into consideration concerns the

complexity of the issues presented ” See Trailer Marine Transp Corp v Charley’s

Truckmg 20 V I 286 289 (V I Super Ct 1984) Roy contends that [Nuranjali] s

claims were not novel and complex and based upon the policy behind the fees and

costs statute, [argues] that a complete indemnification 0f the possible reimbursable

fees and costs is outside the intention of the statute ”

$6 In Hansen U Bryan 68 VI 603 617 (VI 2018) the Supreme Court of the

Virgin Islands explains that “[it] has held the Superior Court [of the Virgin

Islands] should exercise its discretion by considering factors including, but not

necessarily limited to, the prevailing market rates for attorneys in the Virgin Islands

and the difficulty of the issues of [sic] involved Hansen, 68 V I at 617 (citing

Mahabir v Hews of George 63 VI 651 668 (VI 2015)) However the VI Supreme

Court also notes that, “[i]mportantly, nothing in [5 V I C § 541] purports to mandate

that the Superior Court is precluded from granting the full amount of attorney’s fees

and costs requested ” See id Additionally, the V I Supreme Court states that, “while

[it] has recognized that reductlons may be necessary and appropriate in most cases,

it has also recognized that sometimes a prevailing party may be entitled to recover

the full amount requested See Ld (citing Kalloo 1) Estate of Small 62 V I 571 584

n 11 (V I 2015)) The VI Supreme Court concludes the following

[Plaintiff] has not challenged the hourly rate charged by [defendant]’s counsel 1n the appeal Nor has she argued that any partlcular billing entry should have been disallowed Rather, [the plaintiff] simply maintams that “[t]he Superior Court erred by not reducing the fee Roy v Poleon, et a1 Case I\0 ST 2013 CV 00525 Memorandum Opinion Cite as 2021 VI Super 7U Page 4 of 6

award to a small portion of what was requested by [the defendant] ” Because neither Rule 30 nor section 541 mandates that an otherwise reasonable request for costs and fees be arbitrarily reduced in such a manner, we reject Hansen's argument that the Superior Court abused its discretion by awarding virtually all of the costs and fees [defendant] requested

See Ld

1E7 Even though Roy did not respond to Nuranjali’s original memorandum of costs,

the Court still conducted a thorough analysis of the memorandum See Kalloo, 62 V I

at 584 n 11 (citing James 0 Faust 62 V I 554 559 (V I 2015)‘ and RLeara 0 People

07 VI 659 668 (V I 2012)) ( Although the magistrate like any trial Judge has

discretlon in determming reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, we note that

‘meaningful review is not possible where the trial court fails to sufficiently explain

its reasoning”); Roy, 2018 VI LEXIS 136, at *4 9 In its opinion, the Court laid out

5 VIC § 541 and factors that should be considered when “eva1uat[ing] the

reasonableness of the fee amount requested,” including “the time and labor required,

the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform

the legal service properly See Roy 2018 VI LEXIS 136 at *2 3 (citing 5 VI C §

541 and Thomas 0 VI Bd of Land Use Appeals Case No ST 09 CV 202 2018 V I

LEXIS 78 at *5 (VI Super Ct Aug 8 2018) (unpublished))

Additionally, the Court stated the following rule

When granting fees and costs, “a court should do so with an eye toward making any award a fair and reasonable portion of those attorney’s fees it finds were reasonably incurred ” “The startmg point for determining a fair amount of attorney’s fee to award is the ‘lodestar’, the reasonable number of hours worked multiplied by the prevailing Roy V Poleon, et a1 Case No ST 2013 CV 00525 Memorandum Opmion Cite as 2021 VI Super 7U Page 0 0f 6

hourly rate in the commumty for similar work ” Any final award of attorney’s fees, “should represent a fair and reasonable portion of the attorney’s fees incurred and need not necessamly be the whole amount charged by the attorney ”

See ml at *3 4 (citing Thomas 2018 VI LEXIS 78 at *4 6)

{IS The Court removed attorney’s fees that it found to be duplicative See Ld at *5

6 Moreover, the Court did not find “caselaw from a Virgin Islands court supporting

the inclusion of paralegal fees in attorneys fees, and thus [thought] they should not

be included ” Id at *7 The Court found that “not including [the paralegal fees]

Will still produce an award that represents a fair and reasonable portion of the fees

incurred by Counsel ”1 Id at *7 8 The Court also found “that the rates charged by

Counsel are in line with prevailing rates in the Virgin Islands,” and therefore,

accepted the rates charges Id at *8 Additionally, the Court removed costs it found

were not permitted under 5 V I C § 541 See 1d at *9 Most importantly, the Court

found that “the records reflect reasonable hours billed for services offered, and the

total number of hours billed does not appear excessive or unreasonable given the

length of time Counsel represented Nuranjali (over three years) and the success

Nuranjah obtained (summary judgment on all counts against it) ” See Ld at *6 7

139 Roy offers no convincing argument, and the Court finds no reason, to deV1ate

from the attorney’s fees and costs granted in the December 17, 2018 opinion See ld

4 The Court found that, “even if the V I Supreme Court later concludes that paralegal or non attorney fees can or should be included in attorney's fees, whether and what amount of fees to award is influenced by the Court's discretion; the Court in any event deems the total award of attorney's fees after excluding paralegal fees to be an appropriate and reasonable portion of the total fees incurred by Counsel Roy 2018 V I LEXIS 136 at *8 n 4 Roy v Poleon, et al Case No ST 2013 CV 00525 Memorandum Opinlon Cite as 2021 VI Super 7U Page 6 of 6

at *9 10 Therefore, the Court Will reaffirm the original award of attorney’s fees and

costs of $18 768 46 See id at *10

An Order consistent With this Memorandum Opinion Will be entered

contemporaneously

/ / / // 2‘ DATED January 9‘25 2021 é 2% / 24? “i455 Sg Kathleen Mackay Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands

ATTEST TA RA CHAR ES Clerk t Court

BY Wk DO NA D DO VAN Co rt Clerk Supervisor ( 657%