By Michael Homans
February, 2026
“The court is most troubled by Mr. Rajan’s demand that Mr. Bunce appear in Philadelphia for a deposition, only to unilaterally cancel Mr. Bunce’s deposition after he already traveled to Philadelphia,” the judge said.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania awarded nearly $79,000 in attorney fees to a plaintiff and his counsel after concluding a New Jersey-based defense attorney in the case brought “nonsensical” counterclaims and unreasonably attempted to expand the litigation in bad faith.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Kai N. Scott for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania awarded plaintiff Mark L. Bunce and his counsel from HomansPeck $78,705 in attorney fees against attorney Raja G. Rajan of Rajan Law Group in Cherry Hill, NJ for his conduct in the lawsuit Bunce v. Visual Technologies Innovations. The order comes less than a year after Rajan was previously ordered to pay $16,000 in attorney fees for discovery violations in the breach of contract suit, and required to complete a legal ethics seminar over Al hallucinations found in some of his filings.
After Scott entered a $1.38 million award for Bunce in December, the plaintiff moved for fees in relation to expenses incurred in litigating matters where he claimed Rajan exhibited bad faith.
Although Bunce sought $150,000 for more than 300 hours of legal work, Scott concluded that attorney fees for Rajan’s conduct were appropriate at a reduced amount.
Among other things, Bunce alleged that Rajan’s motion to dismiss or indefinitely stay the case pending a separate bankruptcy case was a bad-faith tactic. Further, Bunce took issue with Rajan’s alleged attempt to enforce a previously rejected settlement offer, and for canceling Bunce’s deposition after he had already traveled internationally to Philadelphia. Bunce, who lives on the island of Guernsey, also argued he incurred nearly $39,000 in fees responding to frivolous counterclaims brought by the defendants, who, Bunce said, sought $500 million in damages without evidence.
Finding the counterclaim “absurd” and “nonsensical” and that Rajan “vexatiously intended to harass” Bunce, Scott awarded more than $38,000 for conduct related to the counterclaim, and more than $26,000 for conduct surrounding the canceled deposition.
“Plaintiff counsel unambiguously rejected Mr. Rajan’s settlement offer. There was no meeting of the minds. Yet, Mr. Rajan unreasonably and unfairly canceled Mr. Bunce’s deposition based on a disingenuous claim that the parties had mutually agreed upon a settlement,” Scott said, concluding these actions “exhibited a bad faith attempt to expand litigation unreasonably.”
But it was the travel that Scott particularly took issue with.
‘The court is most troubled by Mr. Rajan’s demand that Mr. Bunce appear in Philadelphia for a deposition, only to unilaterally cancel Mr. Bunce’s deposition after he already traveled to Philadelphia,” Scott said. “Under this court’s inherent sanctioning power, the court requires Mr. Rajan to pay Mr. Bunce’s reasonable travel costs for the deposition.”
The court further awarded Bunce $4,102 in fees in connection to motions for a protective order Rajan filed but later withdrew, and $9,794 for fees for preparing the sanctions motion.
The Monday order was not the first time Scott has entered sanctions in the lawsuit. In 2024, Scott ordered the defendants to turn over information about how a $1 million loan from the plaintiff was spent in the underlying dispute. Rajan submitted heavily redacted documents, claiming the information was “sensitive,” but the discovery was not filed under seal. In 2025, Scott found in part that Rajan defied the court’s order and ordered him to pay about $16,000. Separately, Scott also ordered Rajan to educational programming related to Al and legal ethics over Al hallucinations after he admitted to using ChatGPT in two filings.
Rajan said the ruling Monday was unfortunate, noting he initially got involved in the litigation to help his brother, one of the defendants in the underlying suit.
Michael D. Homans of HomansPeck, in Wayne, Pennsylvania, represented the plaintiff and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
February 04, 2026 at 10:06 AM By Riley Brennan, Law.Com
Michael Homans is an employment lawyer and litigator based in Philadelphia and Wayne, Pennsylvania. He can be reached at mhomans@homanspeck.com or 215-419-7477
