Charles Kosloskey et al. v. LLC (2010)

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS

In this case, the court found that there was a violation by the defendant of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Because there were no demonstrable damages proven or to arise from the violation of that act, the court awarded only nominal damages.   The court further invited the plaintiff to submit proof as to the amount of legal fees incurred in order for the prosecution of this case or that it might consider an award of attorneys fees pursuant to General Statute § 42-110g(d).  On April 26, 2010 the court scheduled a hearing with regard to the issue of whether or not an award of attorneys fees was appropriate and the amount of such an award.   The notice directed the parties to the court's earlier memorandum of decision.

The plaintiff has submitted documentation supporting her claim that she has expended almost thirty-three hours of time in the preparation of trial and post-trial briefing of this matter.   The plaintiff requests payment for that time at the hourly rate of $275.00 for a total of $8,841.25.   She further requests a recovery of $518.69 in costs.

The defendant has objected to these fees alleging that for this type of simple construction matter that the requesting of a hourly fee in the amount of $275.00 was excessive.   Further the defendant asserts, in effect, that the award of statutory attorneys fees in a case where only nominal damages were found would be an inappropriate exercise of discretion.

The court is persuaded that under CUTPA it has discretion to consider an award of attorneys fees so as to carry out the broad remedial purposes of CUTPA.   See Hinchcliffe v. American Motors Corp., 184 Conn. 607, 617-18 (1981).

The court finds that the plaintiff's attorney was well-prepared and ably presented the case.   The court further finds that this case was not an easy case to try because the paper work involved in this litigation that was created by the plaintiff and the defendant was confusing and contradictory at times.   Further, a principle witness that the plaintiff might have anticipated to present her case was not available at the time of trial.   Considering the plaintiff's application in light of the principles enunciated in the case of George Taylor v. David King, KNL CV 07 5002674 (March 30, 2009) (Peck, J.), the court finds that an award of attorneys fees in this case is appropriate in the amount of $7,500.   The sum shall be in addition to the damages awarded by the court, in its earlier memorandum of decision ($18,110.34) plus any costs that may be appropriately taxed by the clerk.

Cosgrove, J.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.