Citizens Bank of Connecticut v. LLC (2009)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [121]

In June 2005, the plaintiff Citizens Bank of Connecticut (Citizens Bank) entered a Business Credit Authorization Agreement (Agreement) with the defendant Metalpro, LLC (Metalpro).   Pursuant to the agreement, $35,000 was advanced to Metalpro.

There is now due and owing to the plaintiff $35,000 plus interest and other charges together with costs and expenses of this action including late charges and a reasonable attorneys fee all pursuant to the agreement.

The Agreement also provided overdraft protection on Metalpro's business checking account up to the amount of $20,000.   Metalpro requested and was provided the overdraft protection.   There is now due and unpaid $8,110.63 on the overdraft protection line of credit.   In addition there is interest and other challenges accruing together with costs and expenses of this action, including late charges and reasonable attorneys fees.

The defendants, Arisco LLC (Arisco), David M. Cote (Cote), Elizabeth L. Wright (E.L.Wright) and Thomas E. Wright (T.E. Wright) each executed guarantees for Metalpro's obligations under the Agreement including the overdraft protection line of credit.   The four defendants described in this paragraph are referred to as the “defendant guarantors.”

The defendant Metalpro has not appeared.   A default was entered against it. [102]

The defendant guarantors filed an Answer and Special Defenses [120] to the operative complaint herein, the First Amended Complaint, February 26, 2009. [118]  Each admitted the execution of the Agreement.   As to the remaining allegations of the First Amended Complaint, defendant guarantors have either denied same or pleaded no knowledge leaving the plaintiff to its proof.

The plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, dated August 12, 2009. [121]  The defendant Metalpro has been defaulted so the allegations of the First Amended Complaint are deemed admitted as against it.

The defendant guarantors have not contested the motion for summary judgment.   They have not filed any affidavit or other form of evidence contesting plaintiff's evidentiary submissions regarding the facts of this case.   Nor have these defendants filed a memorandum opposing summary judgment.   Their counsel did not attend the August 31, 2009 hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment.   The several special defenses filed by the defendant guarantors have doubtful legal merit and there is no evidentiary basis for same;  they therefore have no effect on the outcome.

The affidavit of John A. Gibbons has been submitted.   He is Assistant Vice President of RBS Citizens, National Association (Bank).   The Bank was formally known as Citizens Bank, N.A., and is the successor in interest by merger to the interests of Citizens Bank of Connecticut, the original plaintiff herein, regarding the indebtedness of the defendants herein.

The Bank was substituted as plaintiff herein by order of this court. [109]

The Gibbons Affidavit along with the several exhibits referred to therein and attached to same establish the essential facts alleged in the First Amended Complaint.

As to the defendant guarantors, it is established that Citizens Bank and Metalpro entered the agreement including the overdraft protection line of credit.   Citizens Bank advanced at least $35,000 to Metalpro which has not been repaid at all.   As of December 2006/January 2007, the principal amount of the overdraft protection was $7,086.46.   That principal amount remains unpaid.   The defendant guarantors each executed guarantees of Metalpro obligations under the Agreement including the overdraft protection line of credit.   There is no genuine issue of fact as to the facts recited in this paragraph.

As of August 10, 2009, the amount outstanding and due upon the business credit line was as follows:

Principal $35,000.00

Interest $ 5,664.68

Late Charges $ 910.00

Total $41,574.68

As of August 10, 2009, the amount outstanding and due upon the Overdraft Protection Line was as follows:

Principal $7,086.46

Interest/fees $1,024.17

Total $8,110.63

The Agreement provides for reasonable attorneys fees for both the business credit line and the overdraft protection.

Plaintiff's attorney has submitted an affidavit regarding the attorneys fees which included time sheets.   The time sheets itemized the time expended from May 22, 2007 to August 31, 2009.   The time sheets show the attorney's time was charged at $225 per hour and a paralegal's $95 per hour.

The fourth from the last line on the last page of the time sheets says:

Totals 108.00 $19,463.50

The time sheets do not state how many of the hours are for attorney's time and those for the paralegal.   Therefore, the court had a tape run on the times for each.   That disclosed that the attorney had 71.6 hours and the paralegal 36.4.   The sum of these hours is 108.00.   The dollar amount claimed for the attorney and the paralegal are-

71.6 x $225 = $11,535.00

36.4 x $95 = $ 3,458.00

Total $14,993.00

According to the time sheets, the amount which should have been claimed for attorneys fees is $14,993.00 rather than the $19,443.00 stated in the Affidavit and the final line of the time sheets.  [The discrepancy appears to be a transpositional clerical error.]

Counsel for the defendant guarantors has filed an “Objection To Attorney Fees,” dated September 15, 2009.   The thrust of the objections is that the amount of attorneys fees requested, $19,443, is disproportionately high for the amount sought by plaintiff for the indebtedness to the Bank, $49,685.31.   Furthermore, it is claimed that this matter was neither complex nor novel.

The court has the affidavit and the time sheets.   The court is familiar with the issues presented by this case and has an appreciation for the amount of work this case necessitated.   Its review of the time sheets does not disclose any excess time charges.   The hourly rates are reasonable.   The defendants do not claim the hourly rates are excessive.   Defendant guarantors have not pointed out any time charges that are excessive.   The total amount of time expended is large but that is in part due to the defendants themselves.

Attorneys fees in the amount of $14,993.00 are awarded.

In summary, plaintiff is awarded damages in the amount of $49,685.31.   In addition, plaintiff is awarded $14,993.00 for attorneys fees.

Parker, J.T.R.

Parker, Thomas F., J.T.R.