Opinion
No. 2022-110-Appeal. PC 21-4109
06-16-2023
24/7 INSULATION, LLC v. Lazaro Noriega RAMIREZ.
Joseph R. Daigle, Esq., for Plaintiff. James Hornstein, Jr., Esq., for Defendant.
Joseph R. Daigle, Esq., for Plaintiff.
James Hornstein, Jr., Esq., for Defendant.
ORDER
The defendant, Lazaro Noriega Ramirez (Mr. Ramirez), appeals from the Superior Court's decision sanctioning him and ordering him to pay the plaintiff, 24/7 Insulation, LLC (plaintiff), attorneys’ fees. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this appeal may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this order, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court.
The trial justice held Mr. Ramirez in contempt of a 90-day preliminary injunction and continued the matter for sentencing. At sentencing, the parties disputed the appropriate sanction. The plaintiff sought $5,220 in attorneys’ fees for the work counsel did to enforce the preliminary injunction order. The defendant argued that the appropriate penalty would be a fine, and that each party should pay its own attorneys’ fees.
The trial justice determined that attorneys’ fees were an appropriate sanction and ultimately ordered Mr. Ramirez to pay plaintiff $3,000 for attorneys’ fees. The trial justice considered all of the factors listed in Article V, Rule 1.5 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct. The trial justice acknowledged the need for an affidavit by a noninterested attorney; but, despite the absence of an affidavit, the trial justice nevertheless found the fee amount "to be clearly a normal and satisfactory rate for attorneys ***." The court awarded the attorneys’ fees and stayed the award of the additional $1,250 fees that plaintiff sought.
The record includes a citation to Rule 1.15 of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct; however, the trial justice clearly relied on Rule 1.5, which concerns the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees.
Mr. Ramirez filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, Mr. Ramirez argues that the trial justice erred in imposing the $3,000 attorneys’ fees award. Mr. Ramirez challenges the award, arguing that the amount of the fee is excessive and not reasonably related to the extent and willfulness of the contempt. The plaintiff contends that the trial justice did not abuse his discretion when determining the award of attorneys’ fees.
The trial justice may award attorneys’ fees as a sanction when a party "willfully disobeyed a court order ***." Now Courier, LLC v. Better Carrier Corp. , 965 A.2d 429, 436 (R.I. 2009). The sanction "must be ‘reasonably related to the extent and willfulness of the contempt.’ " Id . (quoting Africano v. Castelli , 837 A.2d 721, 729 (R.I. 2003) ). However, the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded must also be reasonable. See Anton v. Houze , 277 A.3d 695, 706 (R.I. 2022). In assessing the reasonableness of the fees, courts must consider the factors established in Colonial Plumbing & Heating Supply Co. v. Contemporary Construction Co., Inc. , 464 A.2d 741 (R.I. 1983). See Kumble v. Voccola , 253 A.3d 1248, 1255 (R.I. 2021). The assessment "requires a [noninterested] attorney to opine on the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees ***." Id . at 1256 (citing Tri-Town Construction Company v. Commerce Park Associates 12, LLC , 139 A.3d 467, 480 (R.I. 2016) ). The trial justice erred because he did not consider the opinion of a noninterested attorney, despite acknowledging the need for an affidavit.
While Mr. Ramirez did not raise this issue below, we find the issue is not waived because the trial justice was aware of the absence of a third-party affidavit and grappled with the issue. Cf. State v. Diefenderfer , 970 A.2d 12, 30 n.33 (R.I. 2009) ("The purpose of the requirement is to afford trial justices and opposing counsel the opportunity to grapple in the first instance with particular arguments based on the law of evidence in the vital context of the then-ongoing trial.").
The trial justice noted that plaintiff's counsel "ha[d] not yet shown an affidavit justifying the normal amount of attorney[s’] fees and the reasonableness of this bill." However, the trial justice could not take judicial notice of the reasonableness of the fees; rather, the trial justice had to rely on the opinion of a noninterested attorney. Tri-Town Construction Company , 139 A.3d at 480 ; see Colonial Plumbing & Heating Supply Co. , 464 A.2d at 744. Thus, the trial justice was aware that there was no affidavit demonstrating reasonableness from a noninterested attorney, and yet he still awarded fees at a discounted hourly rate. "The fees in this case may very well be reasonable; however, we do not accept that affidavits and documents provided to the court by interested parties should be the basis for awarding them." Tri-Town Construction Company , 139 A.3d at 480. Accordingly, we vacate the sentencing order of the Superior Court awarding attorneys’ fees and remand this matter for further proceedings on sanctions.
The Court hopes the parties are able to resolve this dispute without incurring further legal fees.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 16th day of June, 2023.