SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
HIGH TIMES VI ENTERPRISES LLC
P1 AINTIFF, Civil No SX 2020 CV 921
V UNJUST ENRICHMENT
BREACH OF CONTRACT
HAFIZ AHMAD RAHHAL, INDIVIDLALLY
AND D/B/A DELMA AUTO SALES 8;
WHOLESALE
CITE AS 2021 VI SUPER £3?
DEFENDANT
Appearances
Nathan J Mirocha, Esq
MirochaLaw LLC
Christiansted U S Virgin Islands
For Plamttfls
Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal
Kingshill U S Virgin Islands
For Defendant Pro Se
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILLOCKS Presiding Judge
‘11 1 THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiff High Times VI Enterprises LLC s
(hereinafter Plaintiff ) motion for default judgment filed on March 1 2021
BACKGROUND
HI 2 On December 7 2020 Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Hafiz Ahmad Rahhdl
individually and d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & Wholesale (hereinafter Defendant ) in connection
with an alleged outstanding balance in the total amount of $15 928 39 Defendant owes Plaintiff
Plaintiff s complaint alleged the following causes of action Count I unjust enrichment and Court
II breach of contract Plaintiff sought for a judgment against Defendant in the amount of
$15 928 39 plus pre judgment interest plus costs plus attorney fees and for whatever other relief
High Tune: VI Enterprises LLC 1 Rahhal
SX 2020 CV 921
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER ‘12?
Page 2 01 15
this Court deems fit A copy of Plaintiff s invoice 6903 to Defendant dated January 26 2018
showing a balance due in the total amount of $7 582 39 (hereinafter Invoice 6903 ) and a copy
of Plaintiff s invoice 69771 to Defendant dated J u1y 2 2018 showing a balance due in the total
amount of $8 346 00 (hereinafter Invoice 69771 ) were attached to Plaintiff s complaint as
Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively
(ll 3 Defendant was subsequently served on December 21 2019 Defendant appearing pro se
submitted a letter to the Court dated December 22 2020 advising the Court that he will be oversea
from January 13 2021 to January 28 2021 and requested for a continuance of this matter until his
return However January 28 2021 came and went and Defendant failed to plead or otherwise
defend On February 26 2021 default was entered against Defendant On March 1 2021 Plaintiff
filed this instant motion The following documents were attached in support of Plaintiff s motion
(i) a copy of Hussam Mohammad Rahhal s affidavit ' dated February 26 2021 (ii) a copy of
Invoice 6903 and Invoice 69771 (iii) a copy of Plaintiff s counsel 9 affirmation dated February
26 2021 and (iv) a copy of Plaintiff s counsel 9 itemized invoice
STANDARD OF REVIEW
(ll 4 Rule 55 0f the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter Rule 55 ) governs
entry for default and default judgment An entry of default does not necessitate a defaultjudgment
See Chaput L Scafzdz 66 V I 160 188 (Super Ct June 14 2017)( Plaintiffs do notwin by default
just because the defendants fail to appear ) [W]hen default is entered against a defendant the
defendant is admitting only to the allegations against him as alleged in the charging document
Redemptzon Holdings Int x Gm t0] the VI 65 VI 243 255 (VI 2016)(citing King v Appleton
‘ According to Hussam Mohammad Rahhal s affidavit he is the sole member 01 High Times VI Enterprises LLC
(Rahhal Aff <11 1)
High Times VI Emmpmu LLC l Rahhal
SK 2020 CV 921
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER m
Page 3 0t 15
61 VI 339 346 (V I 2014)) In King the Virgin Islands Supreme Court pointed out that the
Superior Court must considei whether the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of
action since a part in default does not admit mere conclusion of law and that if the Superior Court
determines that the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action then it is to hold a
default judgment hearing to establish the amount of damages 61 V I at 346 (internal quotes and
citations omitted) (footnote omitted) However a default judgment can be entered without a
hearing [w]hen the plaintiffs claim against a defendant is for a sum certain or for a sum which
can by computation be made certain Appleton v Harrzgan
61 VI 262 270 (VI 2014) (citing
Super Ct R 48(a)(l)) 7 see V I R CIV P 55(b)(1) ( If the plaintiff‘s claim is for a sum certain
or a sum that can be made certain by computation the court or the clerk 0n the plaintiff‘s request
with an affidavit showing the amount due must enter judgment for that amount and costs against
a defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an
incompetent person ) In Harrzgcm the Virgin Islands Supreme Court explained that {a} Claim
is not a sum certain unless there is no doubt as to the amount to which a plaintiff is entitled as a
result of the defendant s default 61 V I at 270 1
a See mfra footnote ”4
1 The Han (gait court noted
We again look to federal ease 12m tor persuasive authority because even though Superior Court Rule 48
exclusively gmems detaulljudgment in the Superior Court Federal Rule 01 Chi! Prmcdure 55(1)) similarly
provides that default judgment can be entered without abutting only where the damages sought are a
sum certain SUPER CT R 48(21)( 1) ( When the plaintiffs daim against a detendam is 101 a sum certain or
for a sum whieh can by computation be made certain the clerk upon request of the plaintitl shall enter
judgment for the net amount due and costs against the defendant ) FED R CW P 55(b)( 1) (Ht’V15 It the
plaintiffs L131!“ is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation the clerk must
enter iudgment for that amount and costs against a detendant ) )
61 VI at 270 n 9
Sim.» Hamgan the Virgin Islands Supreme Court adopted the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure which went
into effect on March 11 20l7 Subsequently Superior Court Ruhr 48 was repealed on April 7 2017 by Supreme Court
Promulgation Order No 2017 0006 While Superior Court Rule 48 has been repealed and the Federal Ru1es of Civil
Procedure does not appiy in this matter the Court nexertheless finds the Han 13cm court 5 analysis as to sum certain
claims helpful here since Rule 55(b)(1) closely mirrors its federal counterpart and Superior Court Rule 48
Htgh Times VI Enterprises LLC 1 Rahhal
xigigrfii::2(l)pinion 2021 v1 SUPER 512—13
Page 4 m 15
DISCUSSION
‘l{ 5 In its motion Plaintiff moved for an entry of judgment by default against Defendant in the
amount of $15 928 39 plus pre judgment interest pursuant to Title 11 V IC § 951(a)(1) plus
post judgment interest pursuant to Title 5 V I C § 426(a) until the date the Judgment is satisfied
plus attorney s fees in the amount of $1 715 00 plus costs in the amount of $200 00 plus any other
relief the Court deems just and proper
I Whether Plaintiff is Entitled to 3 Judgment by Default
(H 6 In its complaint Plaintiff alleged the following two causes of action against Defendant
breach of contract and unjust enrichment Plaintiff 5 claim for breach of contract will be addressed
first since equitable remedies are inappropriate where a legal remedy is available Ca(uamanz &
Rover Corp 1 Rama Populm de Puerto Rl(0 61 VI 247 252 (VI 2014) ( Because unjust
enrichment is an equitable remedy it like all equitable remedies is inappropriate where a legal
remedy is available )
A Breach of Contract Claim
‘][7 In Phillip 1 Marsh Monsanto the Virgin Islands Supreme Court conducted a Banks
analysis and determined that to establish a breach of contract claim the plaintiff was required to
demonstrate (1) an agreement (2) a duty created by that agreement (3) a breach of that duty and
(4) damages 66 VI 612 621 (VI 2017) (Citing Bromllard V BL] Mortgage Capital Inc
63
VI 788 798 (VI 2015) (Citing Arlington Funding Sens Inc 1 Gage!
51 VI 118 135 (VI
2009)) A contract may be express implied in fact or implied in law Turnbull t Tumbull
71 VI 96 105 (Super Ct July 15 2019) (china Peppertree Terrace
1 Williams 52 VI 225 241
(V I 2009) (Swan concurring» An express contract is memorialized in oral or written words
and an implied in fact contract is inferred wholly or partially by conduct Id (citing Peppertree
ng/I Tunes VI Enterpmes LLC 1 Rahhal
8X 2020 CV 921
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER $2?
Page 5 0f [5
Termite 52 V I at 241) (Swan concurring» see also Whyte 1 Bockmo
69 VI 749 764 (VI
2018) (citing Peppertree Terrace 52 V I at 241) (Swan concurring» An enforceable contract
requires an offer acceptance a bargained for legal benefit or detriment commonly known as
consideration and a manifestation of mutual assent Wzllzams v Unu Qf the VI 2019 VI
LEXIS 2 *4 (Super Ct Jan 18 2019) (citing Peppertree Terrace 52 VI at 241) (Swan
concurring» see also Corrzelzus v Bank of Nova Scam: 67 V I 806 820 (V I 2017)
( [A] contractis only formed 01 modified to the extent there
is mutual assent and mutual consideration ) A manifestation of mutual assent or a meeting of
the minds requires that the two parties that intend to form a contract ate in agreement to the same
tetms and must be proven objectively Umv 0f the VI 2019 VI LEXIS 2 at >’4 Smu‘h t
McLaughlm 2019 VI LEXIS 180 *7 (Super Ct Oct 22 2019)
(ll 8 The Court will first determine whether the unchallenged facts as alleged in Plaintiff s
complaint constitute a legitimate cause of action Here the relevant unchallenged facts are as
follows
5 On or about January 26 2018 and July 2 2018 Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individually and
d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & Wholesales contracted with High Times to obtain Kettle Brand
chips
6 Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individually and d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & Wholesales has failed
to pay High Times for the services and products provided
8 Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individually and d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & Wholesales
contracted with High Times to obtain Kettle Brand chips on two separate occasions
9 High Times delivered the Kettle Brand chips requested by Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal and
Delma Auto Sales & Wholesales
10 High Times submitted Invoice 6903 on January 28 2018 for the services of obtaining
the product in connection with the request for Kettle Brand chips by Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal
and Delma Auto Sales & Wholesales
11 Invoice 6903 is attached as Exhibit A
Hzgh Times VI Entelpmes [LC t Rahhal
9X 2020 CV 92]
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 42?
Page 6 01 15
12 Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individually and d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & Wholesale has not
paid High Times 1m oice 6903
13 High Times submitted Invoice 69771 on July 2 2018 for the services of obtaining the
product in connection with a new and separate request for Kettle Brand chips by
Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal and Delma Auto Sales & Wholesaies
14 Invoice 69771 is attached as Exhibit B
15 Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individual1y and d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & Wholesales has not
paid High Times Invoice 69771
16 The total amount outstanding and owed by Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individually and
d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & Wholesales to High Time is $15 928 39
35 In Januaty and July 2018 Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individualiy and d/b/a Delma Auto
Sales & Wholesales sought to obtain Kettle Brand chips
36 In January and JuIy 2018 High Times offered to ptovide the requested products to
Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individually and d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & Wholesales
37 In January and July 2018 Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individually and d/b/a Delma Auto
Sales & Wholesales accepted High Times 5 offer to provide the requested services and
Kettle Brand chips at the offered prices per unit
38 In January and July 2018 High Times performed under the contract with Hafiz Ahmad
Rahha! individually and d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & WhoIesa1es by obtaining and
delivering Kettle Brand chips to Defendants
39 Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal individually and d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & Wholesales have
failed to pay High Times the agreed upon rates despite High Times pelformance by
Plaintiff
(Compl fl 5 6 8 16 35 39)
‘11 9 Based on the uncha11enged facts and the invoices Invoice 6903 and Invoice 69771
submitted in support of its allegations the Court finds that the parties had an agreement“ for
Defendant to purchase and Plaintiff to sell the requested products to Defendant at the agreed upon
quantity and the agreed upon rate Plaintiff delivered the requested products at the agreed upon
quantity and the agreed upon rate Defendant accepted the requested products at the agreed upon
‘ 1‘he agreement was either an express oral agreement no written agreement was produced by Plaintiff or an
agreement inferred wholly or partially by Piaintitt s conduct of deiivering the requested products at the agreed upon
quantity and the agreed upon rate and Defendant s Londuct 01 aceepting the requested products at the agreed upon
quantity and the agreed upon rate For the purposa of this memorandum opinion the Court need not determine whether
the agreement was an express agreement or an implied in tact agreement
High Tunes VI Enterpiises LLC t Rahhal
SK 2020 CV 921
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER {EEK
Page 7 of IS
quantity and the agreed upon rate Defendant had a duty to pay Plaintiff for the tequested products
at the agreed upon quantity and the agreed upon rate in the total amount of $15 928 39 Defendant
breached its duty when it failed to pay Plaintiff and Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of
Defendant s breach Thus the Court concludes that the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate
cause of action for breach of contract under Virgin Islands law
‘11 10 The Court will next determine whether a hearing is necessary to establish the amount of
damages Here Plaintiff submitted Hussam Mohammad Rahhal s affidavit in support of his
motion for default judgment ‘ According to Hussam Mohammad Rahhal s‘ affidavit Plaintiff is in
good standing with the Office of the Lt Governot Division of Corporations and Defendant owes
Plaintift an outstanding balance in the totai amount of $15 928 39 for Invoice 6903 and Invoice
69771 (Affidavit ‘1in 2 15) A copy of Invoice 6903 and a copy of Invoice 69771 were attached to
Hussam Mohammad Rahhal s affidavit Based on the foregoing the Court finds Plaintiff s claim
for the total amount Defendant owes Plaintiff under the agreement qualifies as a sum certain
because there is no doubt as to the amount to which [Plaintiff] is entitled as a iesult of
[Defendant s] default Harrzgan 6] V I at 270 Thus the Court concludes that a hearing is not
necessary to establish the amount of damages in this matter
‘11 11 Accordingly given that Plaintiff s claim for breach of contract is for a sum certain or a
sum that can be made certain by computation the Court will grant Plaintiff s motion as to
Plaintiff s breach of contract claim and enter judgment for that amount in favor of Plaintift against
Defendant See V I R CIV P 55(b)(l) ( If the plaintiffs claim is for a sum certain or a sum that
can be made certain by computation the court or the clerk on the plaintiff‘s request with an
‘ See supra footnote 1 According to Hussam Mohammad Rahhal s affidavit he is the sole member 0t High Times
VI Enterprises LLC (Rahhal Ail ‘f[ l)
High Tunes VI Enterprises LLC‘ 1 Rahlml
SK 2020 CV 92}
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER £2}:
Page 8 0t 15
affidavit showing the amount due must enter judgment for that amount and costs against a
defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an incompetent
person ) (emphasis added)
B Unjust Enrichment Claim
(ll 12 Baeed 0n the Court 5 finding as to Plaintiff breach of contract claim the Court will deny
Plaintiff s motion as to Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim See Ca(uamanz 61 VI at 252
( Because unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy it like all equitable remedies is
inappropriate where a legal iemedy is available Due to the unavailability of equitable remedies
when a legal remedy is available [t]he general rule is that no [equitable] quasi contractual claim
can arise when a contract exists between the parties concerning the same subject matter on which
the quasi contractual claim tests since legal remedies are available to a plaintiff in a breach of
contiact action This doctrine known as the barred by contract rule is based on the principle that
parties in contractual privity me not entitled to the remedies available under a judicially
imposed quasi contract because the terms of their agreement express and implied define their
respective rights duties and expectations. Accordingly [a] claim for unjust enrichment cannot
stand where an express contractual agreement exists between the parties {Ht is clear that the
barred by contract rule is the soundest rule ) (internal quotations and citations omitted)
II Whether Plaintiff is Entitled to Pre judgment Interest and Post judgment
Interest
(fl [3 Plaintiff s instant motion requested pre judgement interest and post judgment interest as
part of the relief
High Times VI Enteiprlses LLC v Rahhal
SX 2020 CV 921
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 52.?
Page 9 of 15
A Pre judgment Interest
11 14 Title 11 V I C § 9516 governs the application of pre judgment interest Title 11 V I C §
951(a)(1) provides that “[t]he rate of interest shall be nine (9%) per centum per annum on all
monies which have become due ” Title 11 V I C § 951(a)(1) “The grant or denial
of prejudgment interest remains within the sound discretion of the trial court ” Wzllzams v
Edwards 2017 V I LEXIS 105 at *6 (Super Ct July 12 2017) (quoting Isaac v Crzchlow 63
V I 38 69 (Super Ct Feb 10 2015)
11 15 The Court finds that an award of pre judgment interest is appropriate here Accordingly,
the pre judgment interest owed to Plaintiff shall be as follows (i) For Invoice 6903 pre judgment
interest accruing at the rate of $1 8696 per day7 commencing on January 27, 2018, the day after
the date of the invoice, until the date of the entry of the Judgment and (ii) For Invoice 69771 pre
judgment interest accrumg at the rate of $2 0579 per day8 commencing on July 3, 2018, the day
after the date of the invoice, until the date of the entry of the Judgment
B Post judgment Interest
11 16 Title 5 V I C § 4269 governs the application of post judgment interest Title 5 V I C §
426(a) states that “[t]he rate of mterest on judgments and decrees for the payment of money sha11
be 4 percent per annum ” Title 5 V I C § 426(a) In Chrzstzan v Joseph, the Third Circuit, while
sitting as the de facto court of last resort for the Virgin Islands held that Title 5 V I C § 426
provides for automatic accrual of post judgment interest ”'° 29 V I 404, 408 (3d Cir 1993)
6 In its motion, Plaintiff specifically sought for pre judgment interest pursuant to Title 1] V I C § 951(a)(1)
7 The Court arrived at this figure by using the following calculation ($7 582 39 x 0 09)/365
8 The Court arrived at this figure by using the following calculation ($8,346 00 x 0 09)/365
9 In its motion Plaintiff specifically sought for post judgment interest pursuant to Title 5 V I C § 426(a)
‘0 The Third Circuit 5 decision construing a Virgin Islands statute in Chrzstzan is binding on the Superior Court See
Najawwz v People of the V1 58 V I 315 328 (2013) (“In fact, every other Third Circuit decision which we have
High Tunes V1 Enterprises LLC 1 Rahhal
9X 2020 CV 921
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4:1P
Page 10 01 15
‘11 17 Accordingly the post judgment interest owed to Plaintiff will accrue at the rate of $1 7456
per dayH commencing on the date of the entry of the Judgment until the date the Judgement is
satisfied
III Whether Plaintiff is Entitled to Costs
‘l[ 18 Although Plaintiff did not file a separate motion for costs and fees Plaintiff’s instant
motion requested costs and fees as part of the relief and attached a copy of Plaintiff s counsel 5
affirmation dated February 26 2021 and a copy of Plaintiff’s counsel 3 itemized invoice
According to Plaintiff s counsel 9 affirmation and itemized invoice Plaintiff’s attorney 5 feec in
this matter total $1 715 00 accounting for 4 9 hours of work performed at the hourly rate of
$350 00 and Plaintiff 8 costs in this matter total $200 00 accounting for fees for filing of the
complaint and summons ($75 00) fees for service of summons ($100 00) and fees for the
certificate of good standing for Plaintiff ($25 00) (Plaintiff s Counsel 5 Affirmation qr]! 3 5 6
Itemized Invoice)
A TitleSVIC §54l
‘11 19 Pursuant to Title 5 V I C § 541 a prevailing party may recover costs including attorney 5
fees in a civil action See Kalloo v Estate of Small 62 VI 571 579 (V I 2015) ( By generally
allowing a prevailing party to recover attorneys fees section 54] serves as an exception to the
American Rule against shifting fees to the losing party which serves as the general rule in most
United States jurisdictions ) Title 5 V I C § 541(a) provides that the [c]osts which may be
charaeterized as being binding on the Superior Court tan be traced to a case where the Third Circuit had exercised its
power as the final arbiter of Virgin Islands local lav» ) see also Gm emmem‘ of the Wig": Islands 1 Connor 60 V I
597 606 n 1 (VI 2014) (citation omitted) ( Superior Court should treat decisions 01 the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit as binding precedent with respect to issues of local law )
“ The Court arrived at this figure by using the following calculation ($15 928 39 x 0 04)/365
ngh Tunes v1 Entwpuses LLCt Rah/zal
SK 2020 CV 92]
Memorandum Opinion 2021 v1 SUPER K
Page 11 0t IS
allowed in acivil action include (1) Fees of officers witnesses and jurors (2) Necessary expenses
of taking depositions which were reasonably necessary in the action (3) Expenses of publication
of the summons or notices and the postage when they are served by mail (4) Compensation of a
master as provided in Rule 53 0f the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (5) Necessary expense of
copying any public record book or document used as evidence on the trial and (6) Attorney 5‘
fees as provided in subsection (b) of this section Title 5 V I C § 541(a) Title 5 V IC § 541(b)
provides that [t]he measure and mode of compensation of attorneys shall be left to the agreement
express or implied of the parties but there shall be allowed to the prevailing party in the judgment
such sums as the own in its discretion may fix by way of indemnity for his attorneys fees in
maintaining the action or defenses thereto provided however the award of attorneys fees in
personal injury cases is prohibited unless the court finds that the complaint filed or the defense is
ftivolous Title 5 V I C § 541(b)
(K 20 In Kalloo the Virgin Islands Supreme Court noted that attorneys fees awards should
represent a fair and rea mnable portion of [the] attorney s fees incurred in the prosecution or
defense of the action and not [necessarily] the whole amount charged by the attorney 62 V I at
584 n 11 (internal quotations and citation omitted) (emphasis in original) In Jud: a of SI Crow:
Car Rental 1 Weston the Virgin Islands Supreme Court in considering the reasonableness of the
attorney 3 fees found guidance in the factors discussed by the Appellate Division of the District
Court of the Virgin Islands in Andrew ENNIS v R&G Mortgage Corp DC Civ App No
2003/ 126 (D V I App Jan 10 2007) namely the time and labor required the novelty and
difficulty of the issues involved the level of skill needed to properly conduct the case the
customary charges of the bar for similar services the amount involved in the controversy the
benefits resulting to the client from the services and the contingency or certainty of
High Tunes VI Emelpnses LLC 1 Rah/ml
9X 2020 CV 92]
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPERAw
Page [2 of 15
compensation ' 2008 V I Supreme LEXIS 21 *3 (V I 2008) The language of Title 5 V I C §
541 and case law are clear that it is within the Court 5 discretion to award attorney 5 fees and costs
and to determine the amount to be awarded Title 5 V IC § 541 Kalloo 62 V I at 584 n 11
(noting that a trial judge has discretion in determining reasonable attorney 5 fees and costs) tee
also Mayan v Derr 2017 VI LEXIS 140 *1 (Super Ct Aug 29 2017)
‘f[ 21 The Court will note at the outset that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter based
on the Court 8 finding above that Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment by default The Court further
notes that this is not a frivolous personal injury action Thus Title 5 V I C § 541 is applicable
1 Fees for Filing the Complaint and Summons, Fees for Service of Summons, Fees
for the Certificate of Good Standing for Plaintiff
‘11 22 Title 5 V I C § 541 does not permit the recovery of fees for filing of the complaint and
summons fees for service of summons and fees for the certificate of good standing for Plaintiff
Additionally Plaintiff cited no authority to support its requests for such fees As such the Court
will not grant Plaintiff 8 request for such fees
2 Attorney’s Fees
SE 23 First the Court reviews the time and labor expended in this matter According to Plaintiff s
counsel 5 affirmation and itemized invoice 49 hours were expended in this matter to wit
investigate corporate status of Plaintiff and Defendant draft and file the initiating documents and
motions review documents order the certificate of good standing for Plaintiff The Court finds
the services rendered and the time spent by Plaintiff s counsel to be reasonable
" While the Inch 5 court addressed the reasonableness of the attorney 5 fees requested pursuant to Supreme Court
Rule 30 the Court nevertheless finds its analysis helpful here Thus the Court will eonsider the factors discussed in
Jud: .3 when determining the reasonableness of the attorney 5 fees under Title 5 V I C § 541
High Times v1 Enrmpme: LLCt Rahha/
9X 2020 CV 921
Memorandum Opinion 2021 v1 SUPER 42?
Page 13 0f 15
‘11 24 Second the Court evaluates the novelty and difficulty of the issues involved The Court
finds that the issues invoIved herein is neither novel nor complex given that it is a straightforward
simple uncontested breach of contract case for failure to pay and that the record in this case is.
minimal
‘11 25 Third the Court evaluates the level of skill required of counsel to properly conduct the
case As the Court noted this matter is a straightforward simple uncontested breach of contract
case for failure to pay This means that counsel was only required to have a basic understanding
of the Virgin Islands Rules of Civil Procedure and some basic drafting skins to properly conduct
this case For example 311 the documents prepared and filed in this matter are brief and
straightforward without the need for any complex legal research or analysis The Court finds that
this matter did not requiie a high degree of skill by counsel
‘l[ 26 Fourth the Court compares the hourly rate charged in this matter with the customary
charges of Virgin Islands attorneys According to Plaintiff 9 counsel 9 affirmation he has been
licensed to practice law for 20 years and have practiced law for 20 years in Illinois and 6 years
in the U S Virgin Islands (Plaintiff s Counsel 5 Affirmation ‘11 3) The Court finds that Plaintiff s
counsel 3 rate of $350 00 per hour to be consistent with the customary and prevailing market rates
that similarly experienced attorneys charge in the U S Virgin Islands See 9 g Bank ofAm N A
L Taylor 2019 VI LEXIS 173 at >*4 5 (Super Ct Sept 9 2019) (finding the attorney 5 hourly
rate of $350 00 to be consistent with the hourly rates of a trial counsel who has been practicing
law for 37 years and was admitted to the Virgin Islands Bar in 2005 ) Frezmd t Lzburd 2017 V I
LEXIS 184 at 6(Super Ct Dec 20 2017) (finding the attorneys hourly rate of $250 00 and the
managing attorney 3 hourly rate of $350 00 consistent with the customary charges of similarly
experienced attorneys of the Virgin Islands Bar ) Yeamood Enters l Antilles Gav Corp 2017
ng/I Tunes VI Entetpntes LLC 1 Rahhal
9X 2020 CV 921
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 4219
Page 14 ot 15
V1 LEXIS 171 5 (Super Ct Dec 5 2017) (finding the hourly rate of $350 00 is in line with
the customary and prevailing market rates for attorneyg in the Virgin Islands ) Intemcean Ins
Agency 1 Joseph 2014 VI LEXIS 73 *10(Super Ct Sept 12 2014) (unpublished) (the court
accepted the attorney 5 hourly rates of $350 00 for in court services and $300 00 for othei services
as fair and reasonable for an attorney with his experience and record )
(Ii 27 Fifth the Court considers the amount in controversy and the attorneys fees requested
Here the amount in controversy was $15 928 39 and the attorney 5 fees requeeted was $1 715 00
The Court finds that the relationship between the amount in controversy and the attorney 3 fees
requested to be within reason See Jud: s 2008 V I Supreme LEXIS 21 at *3 (finding that the
attorneys fees is unlikely to be reasonable when the attomey s fees requested was almost four
times the amount in COHtI‘OV erey)
‘I[ 28 Sixth the Court considers the benefits resulting to Plaintiff from the services Here as the
result of the services rendered by Plaintiff‘s counsel Plaintiff obtained a favorable outcome
namely a judgment by default against Defendant for the amount he owes Plaintiff pursuant to their
agreement The Court finds that Plaintiff benefited from the service of its counsel
(ll 29 Finally the Court considers the contingency or certainty of compensation Given that
Plaintiff s coumel charged Plaintiff at the hourly rate of $350 00 it appears that Plaintiff and
Plaintiff s counsel did not have a contingency fee agreement
‘11 30 Based on the Court 5 analysis of the factors set forth in Judi s the Court finds the attorney 5
fees sought by Plaintiff to be reasonable and will not make any adjustments
CONCLUSION
‘11 31 Based on the foregoing the Court will grant Plaintiff s motion as to Plaintiff s breach of
contract claim deny Plaintiff s motion as to Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim grant Plaintiff s
ngh Tunes VI Enterpnvet LLC 1 Rahhal
SK 2020 CV 92]
Memorandum Opinion 2021 VI SUPER 428
Page 15 of 15
request for attorney 5 fee in the amount of $1 715 00 deny Plaintiff 5 request for fees in the amount
of $200 00 and enter a judgment by default in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant as follows (i)
$15 928 39 the total outstanding balance for Invoice 6903 and Invoice 69771 plus (ii) pre
judgment interest for Invoice 6903 accruing at the rate of $1 8696 per day commencing on January
27 2018 until the date of the entry of the Judgment plus (iii) pre judgment interest for Invoice
69771 accruing at the rate of $2 0579 per day commencing on July 3 2018 until the date of the
entry of the Judgment plus (iv) post judgment interest accruing at the rate of $1 7456 per day
commencing on the date of the entry of the Judgment until the date the Judgement is satisfied plus
(v) attorney 9 fee in the amount of $1 715 00 Additionally the Court will close this matter since
there are no other pending issues herein An order andjudgment consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith
DONE this i 73‘“ day of April 2021
, 2
CNN‘ // // if \ f /
HAROLD W L WILLOCKS
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST CROIX
HIGH TIMES VI ENTERPRISES LLC
PLAINTIFF, Civil No SX 2020 CV 921
V UNJUST ENRICHMENT
BREACH OF CONTRACT
HAFIZ AHMAD RAHHAL INDIVIDUAL] Y
1WD D/B/A DELMA AUTO SALES &
WHOLESALE
CITE AS 2021 v1 SUPER 5&2?
DEFENDANT
Appearances
Nathan J Mirocha, Esq
MirochaLaw LLC
Christiansted U S Virgin Islands
For Plamtlfi‘s
Hafiz Ahmad Rahhal
Kingshill U S Virgin Islands
For Defendant Pro Se
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
WILLOCKS Presiding Judge
In accoxdance with the Memorandum Opinion entered contemporaneously herewith it is
hereby
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff High Times VI Enterprises
LLC s (hereinafter Plaintiff ) motion for default judgment filed on March 1 2021 is
GRANTED as to Plaintiff s breach of contract claim and DENIED as to Plaintiff s unjust
enrichment claim It is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff 3 request for attorney 5 fee in
the amount of Si 715 00 is GRANTED It is further
High Times VI Entmpns‘ev LLC 1 Rahhal
SX 2020 CV 921
Order and Judgment 2021 VI SUPER QQ
Page 2 of 2
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff 5 request for fees in the
amount of $200 00 is DENIED And it is further
ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT shall
be ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Hafiz Ahmad Rahha] individually and
d/b/a Delma Auto Sales & WholesaIes in the following amount
(i) $15 928 39 the total outstanding balance for Invoice 6903 and Invoice 69771 plus
(ii) pre judgment interest for Invoice 6903 accruing at the rate of $1 8696 per day
commencing on January 27 2018 until the date of the entry of the Judgment plus
(iii) pre judgment interest for Invoice 69771 accruing at the late of $2 0579 per day
commencing on July 3 2018 until the date of the entry of the Judgment plus
(iv) post judgment interest accruing at the rate of $1 7456 per day commencing on the
date of the entry of the Judgment until the date the Judgement is satisfied
It is further
ORDERED that this matter is hereby CLOSED
DONE and so ORDERED this t W“day of April 2021
C“ /i sf” :/ / , xl/
/\ [/22 / AC 76 XX/‘é/
HAROLD W L WILLOCKS
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court