Peter Currin et al. v. LLC (2013)

JUDGMENT AFTER HEARING IN DAMAGES

In this matter, the plaintiffs, Peter Currin and David Currin, brought a legal malpractice claim against the Blake Law Firm, LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that they had an attorney client relationship with the Blake Law Firm. The plaintiffs claimed that they did not win a federal lawsuit in which they were represented by the Blake Law Firm because of certain actions by the firm.   Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they claim tortious conduct by the defendant which has caused them to incur medical damage, bills, financial loss, and emotional and psychological stress.   The claims seem to be based on allegations that the records of their federal lawsuit were altered and the defendant, although being aware of the alteration, ignored it.   Therefore the plaintiffs claim that the defendant aided and abetted the commission of a tort against them by others.   The plaintiffs seeks a number of different types of relief.   The defendant law firm appeared but was defaulted for failure to plead.   A hearing in damages was held on May 20, 2013 at which the plaintiffs relied on documents already filed in support of their claim for damages.

“A default admits the material facts that constitute a cause of action ․ and entry of default, when appropriately made, conclusively determines the liability of a defendant ․ Accordingly, the entry of default against the defendant commands the rendering of judgment in favor of the plaintiff ․ Following the entry of a default, all that remains is for the plaintiff to prove the amount of damages to which it is entitled ․ At a minimum, the plaintiff in such instances is entitled to nominal damages.”  (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)  Abbott Terrace Health Center, Inc. v. Parawich, 120 Conn.App. 78, 86–7 (2010).  “A judgment of default normally requires a two step process.   The first step is the entry of a judicial ruling of default, which constitutes a technical admission by the defendant of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint ․ The second step of the process is the hearing in damages, in which the plaintiff must still prove how much of the judgment prayed for in his complaint he is entitled to receive ․ Thus, in both equitable and legal actions, the plaintiff must establish his right to relief to the court's satisfaction, even though some issues may have been laid at rest by the default.”  (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)   Ratner v. Willametz, 9 Conn.App. 565, 755–56 (1987).  “The entry of a default constitutes an admission by the defendant of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint ․ The plaintiff must still prove [at a hearing in damages] how much of the judgment prayed for in the complaint he is entitled to receive ․ He is, at the very least, entitled to nominal damages.”  (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)  DeBlasio v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 186 Conn. 398, 400–1 (1982).

The essence of the plaintiffs' claim is that they instituted litigation in federal court in 2007 against various parties relating to their claim that those parties had copied, and profited from, a song to which the plaintiffs owned the copyright.   The plaintiffs claim that as a result of the actions of the Blake Law Firm, they were caused damage and prevented from having their day in court and winning their case via default judgment and settlement.

In deciding the amount of damages, it is well established that such damages must be proved with reasonable certainty.  Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz and Schatz, 247 Conn. 48, 69 (1998).   In their papers the plaintiffs claim an amount of over $80 billion dollars.   The only support for such an amount is some evidence that this is the gross revenue for Sony for the fiscal year 2012, one of the defendants in the federal suit.   The plaintiff's claim that they can recover this amount pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), which sets forth the remedies for copyright infringement.   That statute provides:  “The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.   In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.”   Thus, even assuming the plaintiffs would have prevailed in the federal action, Sony would have been able to establish the amount of its profits actually attributable to the plaintiffs' work and, presumably, significantly reduce the damage figure.   The damages that the plaintiffs can recover here is the actual amount that they would have recovered in underlying action if malpractice had not occurred.  Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Farrish–LeDuc, 275 Conn. 748, 760 (2005).   Therefore this court does not consider the gross revenue number a proper measure of damages here.

The plaintiffs do provide evidence as to other amounts they claim to have incurred as a result of the defendant's malpractice and tortious conduct.   Those amounts are set forth in various worksheets.   The worksheets indicate that the plaintiffs have cash disbursements of $229,440.66 comprised mostly of medical expenses they claim were related to the stress the lawsuit and the defendant's actions caused them from 2006 to 2013.   The plaintiffs submitted a doctor's statement that indicated that the plaintiff, David Currin, was under great stress as a result of the lawsuit and the stress exacerbated his conditions.   The doctor suggested a speedy resolution.   The plaintiffs also claim lost wages and future medication, travel and telephone expenses.   The court finds no support for these being related to the defendant's malpractice or other conduct.   Therefore judgment shall enter in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, Blake Law Firm LLC, in the amount of $229,440.66.   All of the plaintiffs' other prayers for relief are denied.

Jane S. Scholl, J.

Scholl, Jane S., J.