Order granting attorney fees, 2014

=== Page 1 === F72- 1 TUCHMAN & ASSOCIATES KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & AVIV L TUCHMAN, ESQ (SB#133321) GONZO LLP 2 MICHAEL C DICECCA, ESQ (SB#259367) FRANCES O'MEARA, ESQ (SB#140600) 6080 West Pico Boulevard SANJAY BANSAL, ESQ (SB#251563) 3 Los Angeles, CA 90035 11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2400 Tel (323) 653-7100 Los Angeles, California 90025 4 Fax (323) 653-7400 Tel (310) 775-6511 5 Fax (310) 375-9720 Attorneys for Defendants Nıthyananda 6 Foundation, Life Bliss Foundation, Gopal Attorneys for Defendants Nıthyananda 7 Reddy Sheelum, Sıva Vallabhanenı, Ragını Foundation, Life Bliss Foundation, Gopal Vallabhaneni, and International Governing Reddy Sheelum, Sıva Vallabhaneni, and 8 Body Commission of Nıthyananda Ragını Vallabhanenı Dhyanapeetam and Nıthyananda Mission FILED LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT 10 RANCHO CUCAMONGA DISTRICT JEFFREY S RANEN, ESQ (SB#224285) 11 MEGHAN E McCORD, ESQ (SB#242281) JAN 2 7 7014 221 North Figueroa Street, Suite 1200 12 Los Angeles, California 90012 Tel (213) 250-1800 BY KANIN BENAVIDĖS, DEPUTY 13 Fax (213) 250-7900 14 15 Attorneys for Defendants Nıthyananda Foundation, Life Bliss Foundation, Gopal Reddy Sheelum, Sıva Vallabhanent, and Ragını Vallabhanenı 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 17 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 18 VINAY BHARADWAJ, ) CASE NO CIVRS1013793 19 ) Plaintiff, ) Assigned For All Purposes To 20 ) Hon Judge Keith D Davis, Department R12 21 V ) ) [PROPOSED]ORDER GRANTING 22 SRI SWAMI NITHYANANDA, an )DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR individual, and agent and employee of ) ATTORNEY'S FEES 23 Nıthyananda Foundation, Life Bliss 24 Foundation, International Governing Body Commission Of Nıthyananda Dhyanapeetam Date January 13, 2014 25 And Nıthyananda Mission, Dhyanapeeta Time 8 30 a m Charıtable Trust, and Dhyanapeetam Hındu ) Department R12 26 Temple & Cultural Center, et al ) 27 Defendants 28

1 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

=== Page 2 === Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees filed by Defendant NITHYANANDA 1 2 FOUNDATION and LIFE BLISS FOUNDATION (collectively, "Defendants") against Plaintiff VINAY BHARADWAJ came for hearing in Department R12 of this Court on January 13, 2014 Attorneys Aviv L Tuchman appeared on behalf of Defendants Plaintiff did not appear There 5 were on other appearances 6 Having read the motion, opposition, points and authorities, and declarations filed by the 7 parties, and having heard argument of counsel, the Court finds that 1 On August 10, 2009, Plaintiff Vnay Bharadwaj and Gopal Reddy Sheelum, on behalf 9 of Defendants, entered into a valid, enforceable mutual release agreement, which was 10 even notarized (the "Release Agreement") The Release Agreement contained a release 11 provision at page 2, paragraph 3, which released any and all claims Plaintiff had as 12 against Defendants The Release Agreement also contained an attorney's fee provision 13 at page 6, paragraph 12, which provided, in relevant part "If any party to this 14 Agreement employs attorneys to enforce any rights arising out of or in relation to this 15 Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees " 16 2 On January 3, 2011, Mr Bharadwaj initiated this action, alleging both contract and tort 17 claims The tort claims were subject to the release provision of the Release Agreement, 18 and in an attempt to get around that release, the complaint alleged a claim for 19 declaratory relef that the Release Agreement between the parties was "null, void, and 20 Is of no legal force and effect " On February 14, 2012, Defendants filed their Answer to 21 Verified Second Amended Complaint and asserted as their Tenth Affirmative Defense 22 that Plaintiff's complaint, and each cause of action therein, was barred by the written 23 release in the Release Agreement Defendants also prayed for their reasonable 24 attorney's fees pursuant to the fee provision in the release 25 3 On September 11, 2012, following nearly a year-and-a-half of discovery abuse by 26 Plantiff, Defendants filed a Motion for Terminating and/or Issue Sanctions On 27 November 26, 2012, this Court granted the motion and ordered the entire action to be 28 dismissed with prejudice

- ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

=== Page 3 === 1 4 On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the Order Granting Defendant's 2 Motion for Terminating and/or Issue Sanctions and dismissing the entire action On 3 February 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed Appellant's Notice Designating Record on Appeal, 4 and then, on March 4, 2013, an amended notice On March 12, 2013, Defendants filed 5 their Respondents' Notice Designating Record on Appeal, which included numerous 6 hearings and filings from the record that were omitted by Plaintiff 7 5 But then Plaintiff never filed his opening brief As a result, on July 30, 2013, his appeal was dismissed Two days later, on August 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate Appeal Defendants opposed the motion and, on August 28, 10 2013, the appellate court denied it Then, on September 11, 2013, Plaintiff served 11 Defendants with Appellant's Motion for Rehearing of Denial of Appellant's Motion to 12 Vacate Dismissal and to Reinstate Appeal The motion was not immediately filed 13 Instead, on September 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed Appellant's Motion to Stay Issuance of 14 Remittitur Defendants also opposed that motion and it too was denied by the appellate 15 court On October 18, 2013, the remttitur issued 16 6 The Court has already determined this entire action, including the tort claims, was "on a 17 contract" within the meaning of Civil Code § 1717, entitling the prevailing party to 18 recover its attorney's fees pursuant to the fee provision in the Release Agreement On 19 April 8, 2013, the Court awarded Defendants their reasonable attorney's fees as the 20 prevailing party after obtaining a simple, unqualified dismissal with prejudice of the 21 action In its order, the Court found, among other things, that 1 the Release Agreement 22 is a valid, enforceable agreement between the parties, 2 the entire action, including the 23 tort claims, was "on a contract" within the meaning of Civil Code § 1717, and 3 the 24 attorney's fee provision in the Release Agreement entitled the prevailing party to 25 recover their fees in this case The time for appeal of that Order has expired, and no 26 appeal having been filed, the court's Order and the above-findings are now final and 27 binding in this case, including as they relate to this Motion 28 2 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

=== Page 4 === 1 2 7 Defendants are the prevailing party in this matter as having successfully defended the 3 appeal and obtained a simple, unqualified dismissal of the appeal 4 8 As the prevailing party, Defendants are entitled to their reasonable attorney's fees on 5 appeal pursuant to the attorney's fee provision of the Release Agreement under Civil 6 Code § 1717 A judgment of dismissal of the action "on a contract" was already 7 rendered in Defendants' favor By his appeal, Plaintiff attempted - and failed -- to have the dismissal reversed so that he could pursue his action to invalidate the Release Agreement and assert the contractually-released tort claims against Defendants Thus, 10 as was the underlying action, the appeal of its dismissal was "on a contract" within the 11 meaning of Civil Code § 1717 By their opposition, Defendants fought to affirm the 12 dismissal so that the Release Agreement would remain enforceable and achieved that 13 result when the appellate court dismissed the appeal and awarded them their costs 14 Thus, Defendants obtained a simple, unqualified win on appeal and are therefore 15 entitled to their attorney's fees, as a matter of right 16 9 Moreover, the subject attorney's fee provision is broadly-worded and contemplates that 17 any attorney's fees incurred as relating to the Release Agreement warrant 18 reimbursement to the prevailing party There is no limitation within the fee provision to 19 exclude fees incurred on appeals The provision also does not condition the manner in 20 which a prevailing party prevails on the action in order to be deemed a prevailing party 21 As such, the provision entitles Defendants to its attorney's fees mcurred on appeal 22 10 The amount of attorney's fees requested by Defendants is full, fair, and reasonable 23 a Hourly Rates Defendants have presented substantial and sufficient evidence 24 that their attorneys' hourly rates on appeal of $400 for attorney Aviv L Tuchman, $350 25 for attorneys Michael C Dicecca and Andrew C Jhun, and $150 for law clerk Anthony 26 Gentile are reasonable and in line, if not more competitive, than the rates charged by 27 attorneys of comparable skill, reputation, and experience for similar cases On the other 28 hand, no evidence has been presented by Plaintiff challenging the moving party's 3 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

=== Page 5 === 1 hourly rates, and therefore they are presumed reasonable Nonetheless, the Court finds 2 that the hourly rates claimed and actually billed by Defendants' counsel on appeal are 3 reasonable based upon their individual and collective experience 4 b Hours Billed The total numbers of hours claimed on appeal is thoroughly 5 documented by detailed contemporaneous time records, which were submitted as part 6 of the Motion Defendants' are claiming $42,132 00 in fees Other than a general 7 objection to all fees, Plaintiff did not challenge any specific billing entries The Court has thoroughly reviewed all Defendants' counsels' billings and finds that $32,500 00 in 9 fees is the reasonable number of hours spent on this matter and is commensurate with 10 the nature of the appeal and Plaintiff's numerous filings relating to the appeal 11 THEREFORE, IT IS SO ORDERED THAT the Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED, 12 and Defendants Nithyananda Foundation and Lafe Bhss Foundation are awarded their reasonable 13 attorney's fees as costs against Plaintiff Vinay Bharadwaj in the total amount of $32,500 00 14 OUNT O 15 L/27/14 Date 16 Hon Judge Keith D Davis 17 LOF SAN BERNA 18 19

20 21 22

23

24 25 26 27

28

4 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

=== Page 6 === 1 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 2 3 I am employed at Tuchman & Associates in the aforesaid County, State of California, I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action, my business address is 6080 West 4 Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90035 5 On January 14, 2014, I served the foregoing [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 6 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows 7 00 X BY MAIL I placed such envelope for deposit in the US Mail for service by the United States Postal Service, with postage thereon fully prepaid 9 Plaitiff Vinay Bharadwaj, pro per 10 Vinay Bharadwaj Vinay Bharadwaj 11 DOC No 361033 DOC No 361033 Washington Corrections Center Stafford Creek Corrections Center 12 2321 West Dayton Airport Road 191 Constantine Way P O Box 900 Aberdeen, WA 98520 13 Shelton, WA 98584 14 BY EMAIL I caused such document to be transmitted by email to the email address of the X 15 addressee listed below 16 Attorneys for Defendant Nıthyananda Dhyanapeetam Temple & Cultural Center 17 McKay de Lorimier & Acain 3250 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 603 18 Los Angeles, California 90010 Tel (213) 386-6900 19 Fax (213) 381-1762 20 Attn Paul de Lorimier, Esq 21 22 X (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct 23 Executed on January 14, 2014, at Los Angeles, California 24 25 Rebecca E Myers 26 Type or Print Name Signature 2105 M0 27 28

1 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

=== Page 7 === THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS COURT OF ATTACHED IS A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE AND OF RECORD INMY OFFICE. INOCO SUPERIOR ORNIA ATTEST Christina M. Volkers Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, ARDINO in and for the County of San Bemardino. YOF SAN BERNA Ashley Dawson Deputy FEB 0 4 2016 DATE