Opinion
CV176037812
10-21-2019
Donald F. SALOMONE, D.C. v. Michael A. DELLAVOLPE, D.C. et al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Joseph M. Shortall, Judge Trial Referee.
This is a case that was tried to this court on March 26, 2019. In a memorandum of decision dated August 29, 2019 this court found for the plaintiff on the first count of his complaint, alleging a breach of contract by the defendants that arose out of the defendant Michael A. Dellavolpe’s purchase of the entire stock ownership interest in the defendant corporation and his failure to remit to the plaintiff professional fees to which he was entitled under the terms of the contract.
This court further found that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys fees and the costs of litigation under the terms of the contract. Memorandum of Decision, docket entry #127, p. 12. Pursuant to an order of the court, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of those fees, costs and expenses. Docket entry #129.
On September 30, 2019 the court conducted a hearing to determine the reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses to which the plaintiff is entitled. Plaintiff’s attorneys testified at that hearing and were examined by the court, counsel for the defendants having foregone any questions. The attorneys testified that all of the bills had been paid by the plaintiff and in the amounts requested.
The plaintiff is seeking payment of attorneys fees in the amount of $28, 313.00 and costs of $2, 135.82.
"An award of attorneys fees is not a matter of right. Whether any award is to be made and the amount thereof lie within the discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to evaluate the particular circumstances of a case ... A court has few duties of a more delicate nature than that of fixing counsel fees." (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.) Bobinski v. Kalinowski, 107 Conn.App. 622, 628 (2008).
"[T]he initial estimate of a reasonable attorneys fee is properly calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate ... The courts may then adjust this lodestar calculation by other factors." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Laudano v. New Haven, 58 Conn.App. 819, 822-23 (2000). "For guidance in adjusting attorneys fees, Connecticut courts have adopted the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974). The Johnson factors are (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee for similar work in the community, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys, (10) the undesirability of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client and (12) awards in similar cases. Id." Ernst v. Deere & Co., 92 Conn.App. 572, 576 (2005). The court can also apply its own knowledge and experience in determining the reasonableness of the fees requested. See Smith v. Snyder, 267 Conn. 456, 480 (2004).
The court has closely examined the bills for attorneys fees submitted for this litigation. It finds that the hourly rates charged by the attorneys are reasonable. Thus, the lodestar calculation for this litigation is the amount of attorneys fees sought by the plaintiff, $28, 313.00.
The court has considered the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Hwy. Express, Inc., supra, to determine whether this lodestar calculation should be adjusted upward or downward. None of those factors suggests an upward adjustment of those calculations. On the other hand, this action was a straightforward action for breach of contract, fully tried in the course of one day. The court believes that the Johnson factor having to do with the "novelty and difficulty of the questions" requires that the lodestar calculation be reduced to reflect the routine nature of this case. Accordingly, the lodestar calculation for the contract action will be reduced by one-third, to $18, 875.33.
As far as the award for costs and expenses sought by the plaintiffs is concerned, the court will award $1, 231.34, an amount that excludes expenses for mileage and parking and the cost of a trial transcript, none of which are recoverable costs under General Statutes § 52-257. The court finds that they are reasonable and necessary expenses for the litigation of this matter.
Based on the findings detailed in this memorandum and the court’s memorandum of decision dated August 29, 2019, the court enters JUDGMENT against the defendants as follows:
1.
Damages for breach of contract
$ 86, 171.29
2.
Attorneys fees, cost & expenses
$ 20, 106.67
TOTAL JUDGMENT
$106, 277.96
Postjudgment interest shall accrue at 5% per annum until the judgment is paid in full.