UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PRESIDENTIAL FACILITY, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-12346

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

CHRISTOPHER J. DEBBAS and 

JAMES R. GRIFFITHS, 

Defendants,

and 

GREGORY S. CAMPBELL and

ROBERT PINKAS, 

Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PETER SINATRA, EMERALD PARTNERS V, LP, 

and JETDIRECT AVIATION HOLDINGS, LLC, 

Third-Party Defendants.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER

AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,

in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on July 3, 2012.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification of Judgment as Final

and for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs [dkt 168]. No responsive pleading has been filed and

the time do so has expired. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(e). The Court finds that the facts and legal

2:09-cv-12346-SFC-MKM Doc # 170 Filed 07/03/12 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 3257
2

arguments are adequately presented in the parties’ papers such that the decision process would not

be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1 (f)(2), it is

hereby ORDERED that the motion be resolved on the brief submitted, without oral argument. For

the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

II. BACKGROUND

On May 16, 2012, the Court issued an Opinion and Order entering a judgment in favor of

Plaintiff against Defendants Pinkas, Campbell, Debbas, and Griffiths (hereinafter referred to as

“Defendants”) based on a guaranty agreement (the “Presidential Guaranty”) between the parties.

Pursuant to the Presidential Guaranty, Defendants guaranteed to reimburse Plaintiff $10,000,000 if

certain conditions were met. The Court determined in its May 16, 2012, Opinion and Order that the

conditions under the Presidential Guaranty were met and that Defendants’ obligations to reimburse

Plaintiff pursuant to the Presidential Guaranty were triggered. 

The judgment, however, is not final as third-party claims remain unresolved. Defendant

Pinkas has asserted a third-party claim for indemnification against Third-Party Defendant Emerald

Partners V, LP (“Emerald Partners”). Defendant Pinkas alleges in his claim that Emerald Partners

is liable for his obligation under the Presidential Guaranty because he was acting as general partner

for Emerald Partners when he signed the Presidential Guaranty. In response, Emerald Partners has

denied any liability under the Presidential Guaranty and has filed counterclaims against Defendant

Pinkas for breach of contract and breach of his fiduciary duties while he acted as general partner for

Emerald Partners. Before discovery took place, Defendant Pinkas became significantly ill, resulting

in organ transplants. 

On January 17, 2012, Counsel for Defendant Pinkas requested that the Court stay the case

2:09-cv-12346-SFC-MKM Doc # 170 Filed 07/03/12 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 3258
3

until Defendant Pinkas’s health improved. On February 28, 2012, the Court declined to stay all of

the claims in the case. Instead, the Court determined that the third-party claims would be stayed

until further order of the Court, but that Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants involving enforcement

of the Presidential Guaranty would proceed. In the May 16, 2012, Opinion and Order, the Court

resolved Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants, finding that Plaintiff had satisfied its obligations

under the Presidential Guaranty and judgment would enter against Defendants. Plaintiff then filed

the instant motion requesting that the Court certify the May 16, 2012, Opinion and Order as a final

judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and award Presidential attorneys’ fees and costs in the

amount of $313,067.11 as provided for in the Presidential Guaranty. The Court notes that Defendant

Pinkas has recently passed away.

III. ANALYSIS

A. CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT AS FINAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 54(B)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides that “the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one

or more . . . claims or parties” “[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when

multiple parties are involved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court may do so if “there is no just reason

for delay.” Id. The claim or claims sought to be finalized must represent “‘an ultimate disposition

of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.’” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.

Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980) (citation omitted). A “claim”—as used in Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b)—comprises “the aggregate of operative facts which give rise to a right enforceable in the

courts.” McIntyre v. First Nat’l Bank of Cincinnati, 585 F.2d 190, 192 (6th Cir. 1978). 

This case involves multiple parties that are disputing multiple claims. The Court has

resolved Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants in its May 16, 2012, Opinion and Order. The

2:09-cv-12346-SFC-MKM Doc # 170 Filed 07/03/12 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 3259
1

Plaintiff also has attached an affidavit from Zimmerman that was submitted with a previous motion

for the Court’s review. That affidavit—similar to the affidavit stating the costs incurred through

April 30, 2012—states the total amount of attorneys’ fees and costs through September 30, 2010.

No additional documentation is attached to the affidavit.

4

third-party claims between Defendant Pinkas and Emerald Partners are unrelated to the finality of

Plaintiff’s claim against Defendants. While Plaintiff’s claim sought enforcement of the Presidential

Guaranty, the third-party claims consist of an indemnification claim by Defendant Pinkas and a

breach of contract claim and a breach of fiduciary duties claim by Emerald Partners. The “aggregate

of operative facts” that give rise to Plaintiff’s claim are distinct from the “operative facts” that give

rise to the third-party claims. The third-party claims are neither against Plaintiff nor affect

Plaintiff’s enforcement of the Presidential Guaranty. Their disposition will not affect the resolution

of Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is “no just reason for delay[ing]”

certification of the May 16, 2012, Opinion and Order as a final judgment.

B. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL GUARANTY

The Presidential Guaranty provides that “[e]ach Guarantor agrees to pay [Plaintiff’s]

reasonable attorneys’ fees and all other reasonable costs and expenses which may be incurred by

[Plaintiff] in the enforcement of [the Presidential Guaranty], whether or not suit is filed.” Plaintiff

has requested $313,067.11 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Stephanie Zimmerman, general counsel for

Plaintiff, states in an affidavit that “[t]hrough April 30, 2012, [Plaintiff] has incurred $300,493.75

in attorney fees and $12,573.36 in costs in connection with enforcing its guaranty rights, through

the issuance of monthly legal bills by [Plaintiff’s] counsel.” No additional evidence has been

supplied to the Court detailing the attorneys’ fees and costs up to April 30, 2012.1

The Presidential Guaranty only provides for reimbursement of reasonable fees and costs.

2:09-cv-12346-SFC-MKM Doc # 170 Filed 07/03/12 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 3260
5

“The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of

hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v.

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The party requesting an award of costs and attorneys’ fees

must produce evidence “to justify the reasonableness of the requested rate.” Blum v. Stenson, 465

U.S. 886, 896 (1984); Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. The inability to determine the reasonableness may

warrant a reduction of the fees by the court. Id. The court looks to the prevailing market rate to

substantiate the reasonableness of the requested hourly rate. Northcross v. Bd. of Educ., 611 F.2d

624, 638 (6th Cir. 1979).

While the Court acknowledges that this case has had a protracted litigation history, Plaintiff

has failed to provide the Court with sufficient evidence to determine whether the attorneys’ fees and

costs requested are reasonable. Zimmerman’s statement as to the total amount of attorneys’ fees

charged by Plaintiff’s counsel, without additional supporting evidence—such as the hours expended,

the rate charged, or the attorneys hired—is wholly deficient. The word “reasonable” is not even

contained within her affidavits. The only basis that the attorneys’ fees of $300,493.75 are

reasonable is Plaintiff’s own conjecture in its motion and brief. Such conjecture fails to warrant a

finding that Plaintiff’s request is reasonable as required under the Presidential Guaranty. Finding

no basis upon which to determine the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff’s request for

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Certification of Judgment as Final and for Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs [dkt 168]

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2:09-cv-12346-SFC-MKM Doc # 170 Filed 07/03/12 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 3261
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the May 16, 2012, Opinion and Order shall enter against

Defendants Pinkas, Campbell, Debbas, and Griffiths as the final judgment of this Court pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 3, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on July 3, 2012.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-12346-SFC-MKM Doc # 170 Filed 07/03/12 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 3262