Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCP00280, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCP00280 Hearing Date: December 6, 2024 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
janakkumar
dineshchandra patel, Petitioner, v. oceans
v, llc, Respondent. |
Case No.:
23BBCP00280 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion for attorney’s fees and costs |
BACKGROUND
A.
Petition Allegations
On December 26, 2023, Petitioner Janakkumar
Dineshchandra Patel (“Petitioner”) filed the Petition for Writ of Mandate to
compel inspection and copying of corporate documents under CCP § 1085 and
Corporations Code, § 17704.10 against Respondent Oceans V, LLC (“Respondent”). Petitioner alleges that he is the owner and
holder of record of one Class A Membership Unit as defined in the Operating
Agreement for Oceans V, LLC dated June 21, 20216 of Respondent as a result of
having invested $500,000 and paid an administrative fee of $30,000 pursuant to
the terms of a Subscription Agreement executed on November 29, 2016. Petitioner alleges that he invested in
Respondent in part of his effort to obtain lawful permanent residence in the
United States (i.e., obtain a green card) under the Employment Based Fifth
Preference Immigrant Investor Program (the “EB-5 Program”). Petitioner alleges that United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) received his Form I-526
Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur on March 28, 2017, which USCIS denied;
USCIS then denied Petitioner’s appeal.
Petitioner alleges that pursuant to the
terms of the Subscription Agreement, he is entitled to the return of his
investment in Respondent and he is worried that Respondent is unable or
unwilling to repay him for the investment.
He seeks a preemptory writ of mandate to enforce his rights and inspect
Respondent’s books and records. He
alleges that Respondent has ignored his request for inspection in violation of
his statutory and contractual inspection rights.
B.
Relevant Background
On June 7, 2024, the Court granted in part
Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate.
The Court declined to award attorney’s fees and costs at the time of
petition hearing, but ordered Petitioner to separately file a noticed motion
for attorney’s fees.
C.
Motion on Calendar
On June 27, 2024, Petitioner filed a
motion for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $20,536.00.
The
Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.
DISCUSSION
A. Entitlement to Attorney’s
Fees
Petitioner moves for attorney’s fees
based on section 11.7 of the Operating Agreement for Oceans V, LLC dated June
21, 2016. Section 11.7 states:
Attorneys’ Fees.
Should a lawsuit or arbitration be commenced to interpret or enforce the terms
of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs and
attorneys’ fees in addition to any other recovery to which such party may be
entitled.
(Mot., Ex. A [Operating Agreement, §
11.7].)
Here, there is a contractual basis for attorney’s fees in this action. Petitioner
is the prevailing party on the petition for review of Respondent’s corporate
records, which was based on Corporations Code, § 17704.10 and the Operating
Agreement at sections 8.1 and 8.2. The
petition was largely granted in part in favor of Petitioner. The motion is not opposed, such that
Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner is the prevailing party in this
action.
Thus, as the
prevailing party, Petitioner is entitled to fees pursuant to statute.
B.
Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees
In support of the request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $20,536, Petitioner
provides the declaration of counsel William E. Adams.
Mr. Adams states that he has over 30 years of legal experience as a trial
lawyer representing businesses, lenders, and municipalities in commercial and
real estate disputes. (Adams Decl., ¶2.) He states that his billing rate was $680 for
this action, which is a reduction from his standard hourly rate. (Id.)
He states that this hourly rate is reasonable based on his experience in
the community. (Id.) Mr. Adams states that he personally reviewed
the invoices for all legal services and has billed 26.6 hours in this matter,
and anticipates spending 3.6 hours reviewing the opposition papers, preparing a
reply brief, and attending the hearing.
(Id., ¶3.) Although no
invoices are provided, Mr. Adams states that he incurred the 26.6 hours as
follows: “document review and background investigation (3.5 hours at a cost of
$2380.00); Preparation of the demand letter to Respondent (1.5 hours at a cost
of $1020.00); Preparation of the Verified Petition (5.8 hours at a cost of
$3944.00); Court appearances (1.5 hours at a cost of $1020.00); Review of
documents produced by Respondent (2.7 hours at a cost of $1836.00); Research
and briefing of the writ of mandamus (6.9 hours at a cost of $4692.00);
Research and briefing fee motion (4.7 hours at a cost of $3196.00).” (Id.,
¶4.)
The Court finds that the hours spent on this action are reasonable at 26.6
hours. However, the Court declines to
award the anticipated time of 3.6 hours as the motion is not opposed. The Court will also reduce Mr. Adams’ hourly
rate to $600 hour as the petition itself was not a complicated matter. Thus, taking into account these adjustments,
the Court will award a total of $15,960.00 in attorney’s fees (= 26.6 hours x
$600/hour).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Petitioner
Janakkumar Dineshchandra Patel’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the
amount of $15,960.00.
Petitioner shall provide notice of
this order.
DATED:
December 6, 2024 ___________________________
John
Kralik
Judge of
the Superior Court