Quanell Spearman v. Law Firm of Gary A. Mastronardi (2014)

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 112)

The defendant has moved for summary judgment as to all counts of the plaintiff's complaint.   For the reasons that follow, the court grants the defendant's motion.

FACTS

The plaintiff, Quanell Spearman, commenced this action by service of process on the defendant, the Law Firm of Gary A. Mastronardi, on December 13, 2011.   In a three-count complaint sounding in breach of contract, “unconscionable contract,” and “failure to perform specifically to contract,” the plaintiff alleges the following facts.   On February 12, 2008, the plaintiff and his mother, Angela Spearman, signed an agreement to retain the defendant as the plaintiff's legal counsel in a criminal prosecution for murder.   Pursuant to that contract, the parties agreed to pay the defendant a retainer in the amount of $15,000 for all pretrial legal work and an additional fee of $20,000 upon the initiation of trial proceedings.   The plaintiff pled guilty to the charges against him, and the case did not proceed to trial.   The defendant allegedly then induced the plaintiff's mother to enter into a second contract without having fulfilled his obligations under the first contract, and subsequently petitioned the court to place a lien on her residence to collect on the debt.   In doing so, the defendant (1) induced the plaintiff into an unconscionable contract, (2) failed to specifically perform to the terms of the parties' original contract, and (3) breached the parties' original contract by seeking a greater sum of money than the parties agreed upon.

On December 9, 2013, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment in his favor, which this court denied on January 6, 2014.   On December 17, 2013, the defendant filed a cross motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff was not a party to the contract that he contests in the complaint, and the plaintiff therefore cannot prove a breach of the agreement or damages arising therefrom.   In support of the motion, the defendant submitted a memorandum of law, his own affidavit, a copy of the February 2008 retainer agreement, and a judgment of foreclosure on the plaintiff's mother's property as payment for the debt she owed the defendant, dated February 6, 2012.   The court heard oral argument on the motion on February 3, 2014.

DISCUSSION

“Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when pleadings, affidavits, and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation, 306 Conn. 523, 534, 51 A.3d 367 (2012).  “As the burden of proof is on the movant, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent ․ Once the moving party has met its burden, however, the opposing party must present evidence that demonstrates the existence of some disputed factual issue.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1, 11, 938 A.2d 576 (2008).

In the present case, the defendant argues that there is no material fact in dispute that the plaintiff was not a party to the contract of which he claims the defendant is in breach, as it was executed between the defendant and the plaintiff's mother, and that judgment should therefore be granted in his favor as a matter of law.   In support of this argument, the defendant submits an affidavit in which he avers that, after paying the initial $15,000 retainer fee to secure the defendant's legal services on behalf of her son, the plaintiff's mother executed a promissory note on December 26, 2008, in which she alone agreed to pay the defendant $25,000 ¹ for his remaining work on the plaintiff's defense.  (Def.'s Aff. ¶¶ 4, 7.) In support of this claim, the defendant references the copy of the signed promissory note that the plaintiff submitted with his own motion for summary judgment,² and submits the court's judgment of foreclosure issued against the plaintiff's mother on February 6, 2012 to enforce payment of the debt due under the note.

It is well established that “[t]he elements of a breach of contract action are the formation of an agreement, performance by one party, breach of the agreement by the other party and damages.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Sullivan v. Thorndike, 104 Conn.App. 297, 303, 934 A.2d 827 (2007).   As the moving party, the defendant has met his burden of establishing that there is no material fact in dispute that the plaintiff was not a party to the December 2008 contract.   The plaintiff's submissions, even in support of his own motion for summary judgment, do not contradict the defendant's factual assertions.

The court also notes that the plaintiff cannot prove damages under the contract at issue, which is an essential element of a breach of contract claim.   In a breach of contract action, “[d]amages are recoverable only to the extent that the evidence affords a sufficient basis for estimating their amount in money with reasonable certainty.”  Id., 304.   Given that the plaintiff was not a party to the contract executed between the defendant and his mother, he can prove neither breach of the agreement nor damages arising therefrom.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Frechette, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The defendant notes that this sum represented the $20,000 fee that was referenced in the February 2008 contract and was to be paid upon the initiation of trial proceedings, and a payment of $5,000 (which was later reduced to $2,500) for the services of a private investigator..  FN1. The defendant notes that this sum represented the $20,000 fee that was referenced in the February 2008 contract and was to be paid upon the initiation of trial proceedings, and a payment of $5,000 (which was later reduced to $2,500) for the services of a private investigator.

FN2. Where both parties reference an identical copy of the same document as evidence to be considered by the court in support of their respective positions on a motion for summary judgment, “both can be understood to have admitted by their references to it in their affidavits, briefs and arguments that the [document] before the court was in fact authentic.”   Bruno v. Whipple, 138 Conn.App. 496, 507, 54 A.3d 184 (2012).   It is therefore undisputed that the agreement at issue in the present motion was executed exclusively between the defendant and the plaintiff's mother..  FN2. Where both parties reference an identical copy of the same document as evidence to be considered by the court in support of their respective positions on a motion for summary judgment, “both can be understood to have admitted by their references to it in their affidavits, briefs and arguments that the [document] before the court was in fact authentic.”   Bruno v. Whipple, 138 Conn.App. 496, 507, 54 A.3d 184 (2012).   It is therefore undisputed that the agreement at issue in the present motion was executed exclusively between the defendant and the plaintiff's mother.

Frechette, Matthew E., J.