Sachdev v. Sachdev, Paul's (Guam) Inc.

Opinion

FILED

SUPERIOR COL RT

1 OF GUAM 2 2010 DEC 29 P1 L.

3 CLERK OF COU BY:

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7

8 HARGOPAL S. SACHDEV, CIVIL CASE NO. CV0626-1 1 9 Plaintiff,

10

11 vs.

DECISION AND ORDER

12 AMARJff S. SACHDEV, PICHET SACHDEJ, PAUL’S (GUAM), INC., and 13 JPR,E’1C., 14 Defendants.

15

16 INTRODUCTION 17 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on December 3, 2019, upon 18 the Plaintiffs Motion for Reimbursement of Fees and Costs Re: Private Attorney General filed 19 September 4, 2020 (“Motion”). Attorney Daniel J. Berman represents Plaintiff Hargopal S. 20 Sachdev (“Plaintiff’). Defendants Amarjit S. Sachdev, Pichet Sachdej, Paul’s (Guam), Inc., and 21 JPR, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) were represented by Attorneys Cesar Cabot and Jon R. 22 Ramos. For the reasons set forth below, having reviewed the pleadings and oral arguments in 23 this matter, the Court issues the following Decision and Order. 24 BACKGROUND 25 The instant case arises from a dispute between three brothers and two corporate 26 defendants. Both the procedural history and facts of this case have been thoroughly outlined in 27 the various pleadings and orders in the record. Thus, the following facts are only those pertinent 28 to the instant motion. The facts set forth in the Plaintiffs Motion are not disputed.

Decision and Order .

Civil Case No. CV0626- 11; Sachdev v. Sachdev, et at.

1 On June 21, 2017, the Court executed a Final Judgment (“Judgment”) confirming the 2 arbitration awards in this matter. On December 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Request for Order 3 to Show Cause and Order to Show Cause alleging that the Defendants failed to “make a 4 contribution of $100,000.00 to a licensed tax-exempt charity in the name of Teja Singh 5 Sachdev, and shall provide proof of such contribution to Plaintiff’ pursuant to the Judgment. 6 The Plaintiff argued that instead of a monetary contribution of $100,000.00 to a charity, the 7 Defendants delivered various school uniforms to private schools in the name of Teja Singh $ Sachdev purportedly valued at that amount. The Defendants, on the other hand, maintained that 9 they had fully complied with the Judgment, arguing that the Judgment did not specify that the 10 required charitable contribution must be a cash contribution. 11 On february 9, 2018, the Referee issued a Decision and Recommendation on Plaintiffs 12 Request for Order to Show Cause, finding the Defendants in contempt for willfully failing to 13 comply with the terms of the Judgment. Thereafter, having yet to satisfy the Judgment, the 14 Plaintiff filed another Request for Order to Show Cause why an Order should not be made 15 finding the Defendants to be in contempt of Court for willfully failing to contribute $100,000.00 16 in cash to a tax-exempt charity. Consequently, the Court ordered the Defendants to appear to 17 show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the terms of the 18 Judgment and the Referee’s Decision. A hearing was held on the Plaintiffs Order to Show 19 Cause on September 27, 2018. 20 On february 1, 2019, the Court issued its Decision and Order affirming the Referee’s 21 Decision and Recommendation on Plaintiffs first Request for Order to Show Cause. Thus, 22 adopting the finding and conclusions contained therein, the Court found the Defendants in 23 contempt for willfully failing to comply with the terms of the Judgment. Further, the Court 24 adopted the Referee’s recommendation and scheduled further proceedings to determine whether 25 and to what extent the Defendants should be given credit for the school uniforms donated to St. 26 John’s School and St. Paul Christian School. The Evidentiary Hearing in this matter was held 27 onlulyl,2019. 2$

Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV0626-1 1 Sachdev v. Sachdev, et al.

On July 22, 2020, having reviewed the evidence and testimonies of the parties and their 2 witnesses, the Court found it was equitable and just to credit the Defendants the “costs of goods 3 sold” of the school uniforms donated to both schools — that is, Sixty-Two Thousand Dollars 4 ($62,000.00) for the uniform articles donated to St. John’s School, and Twenty-Two Thousand 5 Dollars ($22,000.00) for the uniform articles donated to St. Paul’s Christian School. Thus, the 6 Court credited the Defendants Eighty-four Thousand Dollars ($84,000.00) toward their 7 satisfaction of the Judgment, and further ordered the Defendants to pay the remaining amount 8 due in cash to a tax-exempt charity in the name of Teja Singh Sachdev, and to provide proof of 9 such payment to the Plaintiff. 10 On September 4, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, requesting reimbursement ii of attorneys’ fees and costs in his favor based on the Private Attorney General (“PAG”) 12 exception to the American Rule governing awards of legal fees in civil litigation. The Plaintiff 13 argues that litigation in this matter, between June 21, 2017 and the present, all arise from the 14 Defendants’ failure to make and pay the One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000.00) 15 charitable contribution as contained in the Judgment. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that he 16 has incurred attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars 17 ($10,700.00) to enforce the Judgment obligation on the Defendants. 18 On October 2, 2020, the Defendants filed their Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion. The 19 Defendants contend that the Court should deny the instant motion on the grounds that the PAG 20 exception is unrecognized in Guam and also inapplicable in this matter. Therefore, the 21 Defendants argue that each side bears their own costs. The Plaintiff filed his Reply on October 22 12,2020. 23 On December 3, 2020, a hearing was held on the instant motion. The parties and their 24 counsel appeared via Zoom. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under 25 advisement. 26 DISCUSSION 27 The award of attorney’s fees in United States jurisdictions, including Guam, applies 28 what is commonly referred to as the “American Rule.” Fleming v. Quigley, 2003 Guam 4 ¶ 7.

Page3of6

Decision and Order .

Civil Case No, CV0626- 11; Sachdev v. Sachdev, et at.

I “Under the American Rule, parties bear their own litigation expenses, including attorney’s 2 fees.” Id. (citing Atyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975)); see 3 also 7 GCA § 26601(f). There are several exceptions to this rule, which include matters where 4 attorney’s fees are: (1) authorized by statute, (2) authorized by contract, or (3) allowed in 5 judicially-established equitable circumstances.” Fleming, 2003 Guam 4 ¶ 7 (emphasis added) 6 (“If an exception applies, fee-shifting is allowed.”). In Fleming, the Guam Supreme Court took 7 notice of commonly recognized equitable exceptions to the American Rule, including “the $ common fund, substantial benefit, private attorney general, third-party tort, and bad faith 9 theories of recovery.” Id. at n. 3 (citing Trope v. Katz, 902 P.2d 259, 263 (1995); Young v. 10 Redman, 128 Cal.Rptr. 86, 92 (Ct.App.1976)). further, citing Fleming, the Guam Supreme ii Court in Moylan, again recognized the aforementioned equitable exceptions to the American 12 Rule. In re Guardianship of Moytan, 2018 Guam 8 ¶ 24 (“attorney’s fees may. . . be awarded if 13 authorized by. . . equitable circumstances.”). 14 Here, the Defendants argue that Guam has neither recognized nor established a private 15 attorney general equitable exception to the American Rule. In their Opposition, the Defendants 16 cite to another trial court decision, Chargualaf v. Dep’t of Public Health (Garrido), SP0049-17 17 (Dec. Order, Nov. 23, 2017), to support their argument. In Chargualaf, the trial court denied a 1$ motion for attorney’s fees, finding that Guam had not established the private attorney general 19 exception, nor had it yet to be applied to any case in Guam. Id. Therefore, the trial court held 20 that it was without authority to grant an award of attorney’s fees under the private attorney 21 general exception. id.1 The Court however, notes that Charguataf was a 2017 decision. The 22 following year, the Guam Supreme Court issued Moylan, which, as aforementioned, recognized 23 the conmion equitable exceptions to the American Rule, including the private attorney general 24 exception. See Moytan, 2018 Guam 8 ¶ 24 (citing Fleming, 2003 Guam 4 ¶ 7). Further, this 25 Court is not bound by another trial court’s decision. Thus, because Chargualaf is not binding 26

27 In Chargualaf, the trial court reasoned that, notwithstanding the applicability of the private attorney general exception, the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity controlled and foreclosed all legal fees to Petition, Id. at p. 4, ln 11-

28 20; p. 5, in. 1-15.

Decision and Order .

Civil Case No. CV0626-1 1; Sachdev v. Sachdev, et at.

I upon this Court, and in light of the Guam Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Moytan, the Court 2 will nonetheless invoke its inherent equitable authority to apply the private attorney general 3 exception in this instance. See Fleming, 2003 Guam 4 ¶ 32 (“Courts have the inherent 4 discretionary power to award attorney’s fees in accordance with equitable principles in specified 5 circumstances.”); see also Trope, 45 902 P.2d at 263 (Courts have relied on their “inherent 6 equitable authority” to develop several exceptions to the American Rule.); Atyeska, 421 U.S. at 7 259 (recognizing the “inherent power in the courts to allow attorney’s fees in particular 8 situations”); Yottng, 128 Cal.Rptr at 92 (recognizing specific circumstances wherein an award of 9 attorney’s fees is warranted in accordance with equity). 10 Generally, to prevail under the private attorney general exception, the moving party 11 must establish all of the following: (1) he or she is a successful party; (2) the action has resulted 12 in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest; and (3) the action has 13 conferred a significant benefit on the public or a large class of persons, and (4) an attorney fees 14 award is appropriate in light of the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement. 15 Graham v. DaimlerChryslet Corp., 101 P.3d 140, 147 (Cal. 2004). “[T]he fundamental 16 objective of the doctrine is to encourage suits enforcing important public polices by providing 17 substantial attorney fees to successful litigants in such cases.” Id. (citing Maria P. v. Rites, 43 18 Cal.3d 1281, 1288-1289 (1987)). 19 Here, the private attorney general equitable exception to the American rule, although a 20 valuable doctrine, is inapplicable in this case. The instant litigation is a suit between three 21 brothers, brought before this Court to enforce a Judgment ordering the Defendants to make a 22 charitable contribution under the name of their father. In the Court’s latest decision, the 23 Defendants were credited for their donation of school uniforms to St. John’s School and St. Paul 24 Christian School and were ordered to pay the remaining amount under the Judgment, that is 25 $16,000.00 cash, to a recognized charity. Nothing about this case deals with the enforcement of 26 an important right affecting the public interest, nor has the action conferred a significant benefit 27 on the public or a large class of persons. While the Judgment in this case required the 28 Defendants to make a monetary contribution to a charity, the contribution was made to a

Decision and Order Civil Case No. CV0626-11; Sachdev v. Sachdev, et al.

e

I specific charity, with a specific purpose, for a specific person. Thus, based on the foregoing, the 2 Court finds that benefit incurred is not significant enough nor does it affect the public or large 3 class of persons to the extent that an award of attorney’s fees under the private attorney general 4 equitable exception is warranted. 5 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reimbursement of Fees and 6 Costs. Each side shall bear their own costs. 7 CONCLUSION 8 for the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for 9 Reimbursement of Fees and Costs Re: Private Attorney General. Each side shall bear their own 10 costs. ii

12 DEC 292020 IT IS SO ORDERED

13

17 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam 18

19

20

21 -

22

23 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL i acknowledge that an electronic 24

25 1()

Date:

26

27 cJiuty

clerk Supenor court of Guam