Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00484/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00484-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAGJEEVAN K. DHALIWAL AND 

MOHINDER S. GILL,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

KS CHANDI & SONS, INC., et. al. ,

 Defendants.

1:13-CV-484-LJO-SKO

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST 

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

(Doc. 103)

On August 20, 2014, Defendants KS Chandi & Sons, Inc. and Chandi Brothers, LLC 

(collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion to expunge lis pendens. Doc. 103. In their motion, 

Defendants requested an award of $6,650.00 for the attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing 

the motion. Id. at 10. On September 16, 2014, the Court granted Defendants’ motion, but inadvertently 

failed to address Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs. Doc. 124.

Because the Court granted Defendants’ motion to expunge, the Court must award Defendants 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing the motion unless Plaintiffs “acted with 

substantial justification [in filing the lis pendens] or that other circumstances make the imposition of 

attorney’s fees and costs unjust.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 405.38. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving 

they acted with substantial justification. See Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. United Way Calif. Capital Region, 

No. CIV S-07-1236 WBS DAD, 2007 WL 4522967, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2007). “California cases 

have defined a ‘substantially justified’ position to mean one which is justified to a degree that would 

satisfy a reasonable person.” Wertin v. Franchise Tax Bd., 68 Cal.App.4th 961, 977 (1998).

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not acted with substantial justification. Doc. 103-3 at 10. In 

Case 1:13-cv-00484-SKO Document 128 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

their opposition to Defendants’ motion to expunge, Plaintiffs make no argument as to whether they acted 

with substantial justification in filing the lis pendens and refusing to withdraw it after Defendants’ 

requests to do so. See Doc. 115 at 3. Plaintiffs therefore have failed to meet their burden of proving that 

they acted with substantial justification, and the Court cannot find circumstances that would make the 

imposition of attorney’s fees unjust here. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 405.38. 

Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Counsel for 

Defendants requests $6,650.00 in attorney’s fees and costs for 19 hours expended at a rate of $350.00 

per hour. Doc. 103-2 at 3. Counsel claims he spent 14 hours in preparing the motion to expunge and 

anticipates spending an additional 5 hours responding to Plaintiffs’ opposition and attending the hearing 

on the matter for a total of 19 hours. Id.

The Court finds counsel for Defendants’ request to be wholly unreasonable. The Court recently 

granted the same counsel an award of attorney’s fees and costs for bringing a nearly identical motion to 

expunge in a related case. See Doan v. Singh, 13-cv-531-LJO-SMS, Doc. 57 at 6. In that case, counsel 

claimed that he expended 6.5 hours at an hourly rate of $350.00 for a total of $2,275.00. Doan, 13-cv531-LJO-SMS, Doc. 50-2 at 2. 

Given counsel’s familiarity with the issues underlying the motion, the relative brevity of the 

parties’ pleadings, and the fact that the Court did not hold a hearing on the matter, the Court cannot find 

that 19 hours is a reasonable amount of time for counsel to have spent on the motion. It appears 

particularly unreasonable given that counsel recently spent 6.5 hours on a nearly identical motion in 

Doan.

The Court finds that $350.00 per hour is a reasonable rate but that 3.5 hours is a reasonable 

amount of time here. Counsel for Defendants is therefore awarded $1,225.00 in attorney’s fees and costs 

associated with bringing the motion to expunge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00484-SKO Document 128 Filed 09/18/14 Page 2 of 2