Crown Linen Service, Inc. v. Eugene Mastroianni dba Chef Eugene Restaurant (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON OBJECTION TO FACT FINDER'S REPORT

In this action to obtain liquidated damages and attorneys fees arising from the cancellation of a five-year contract for the supply of restaurant linen supplies, the matter was referred to a fact finder who issued a Finding of Fact and Award of Damages dated August 30, 2010.   The finding failed to award liquidated damages and recommended a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $895.85, consisting of contract damages of $672.06 and legal fees of $223.80.

Plaintiff objects to the Finding because the report failed to award lost profits and/or liquidated damages as requested and failed to award attorneys fees based on the time expended by counsel.

-I-

It is well settled that the amount of a damage award is a matter peculiarly within the province of the fact finder.  Greci v. Parks, 117 Conn.App. 658, 679, 980 A.2d 948 (2009).

The reviewing authority may not substitute its finding for those of the trier of the facts.  Baxter v. Aslansan, 85 Conn.App. 816, 818, 859 A.2d 57 (2004).

Under circumstances where liquidated damages clauses are found invalid as penalties, the non-breaching party is entitled to recover actual damages ․ Where a contract's liquidated damages clause has not been implemented because a condition to its application has not been satisfied, a court can award equal to lost profits ․ We hold that where a liquidated damages clause cannot be enforced because the party liable for payment of those damages has breached the contract, and by the breach has made it impossible to calculate those damages, the non-breaching party may seek actual damages.   The principal purpose of the remedies for a breach of contract is to provide compensation for loss ․ The amount, if any, of the plaintiff's actual damages is a question of fact.   Sanitary Services Corp. v. Greenfield Village Assn, Inc., 36 Conn.App. 395, 269 (1994).

In the present case, the findings of fact included the following:  the plaintiff offered no testimony to establish actual loss of damages other than the liquidated damages provision;  eighty percent of the linens were reusable with other new or existing customers;  the plaintiff did not hire new staff or purchase new equipment when the agreement was established;  the plaintiff did not reduce staff or sell or idle any equipment at the time the agreement ended;  and if the agreement had continued for five years the amount of profit would have been in the range of $1,700 to $2,400.

The fact finder recommended that contract damages be awarded in the amount of $672.06.   The recommendation is not legally or logically incorrect merely because it is not equivalent to the amount of lost profits, as the plaintiff contends.   The fact finder's report contains findings that support the recommended damage award.   Because the award of damages is not clearly erroneous this court may not change the award.

-II-

The amount of attorneys fees to be awarded rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the trial court has abused its discretion.  Land Group, Inc. v. Palmieri, 123 Conn.App. 84, 98 (2010).

In the present case, the record that existed at the time of the trial, which was completed on April 26, 2010, contained no evidence regarding the plaintiff's attorney fees.   The plaintiff's bill of costs and affidavit of attorneys fees were filed on August 25, 2010, and the plaintiff's supplemental affidavit of attorneys fees was filed on November 9, 2010, after the trial was completed.   The plaintiff has not provided this court with a transcript of the evidence taken before the fact finder, as required by Practice Book § 19-14, and this court has no reason to question the presumption of regularity that attends the acts of hearing officers.   The plaintiff has failed to show that the fact finder abused his discretion in awarding one-third of the damage amount as attorneys fees, in lieu of the higher amount requested based on hours of input.

Because the recommended award of damages is not clearly erroneous, and there is no evidence that the fact finder abused his discretion in recommending the award of attorneys fees, this court may not change the award.

Objection to fact finder's report overruled.

Wagner, J., JTR

Wagner, Jerry, J.T.R.