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Dec 14 2018) (unpublished) On October 23 2017 the Court d1rected Roy to file a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