Summary
including paralegal fees and copier expenses in its attorney's fees award
Summary of this case from Kinsey v. World PacOpinion
No. CV 07-4028971
August 5, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS FEES DATED JUNE 26, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,200 FOR THE APPELLATE WORK PERFORMED BY PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY NEIL JOHNSON. THIS MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ALSO INCLUDES PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM DATED JULY 12, 2009 FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS FEES FOR FILING A REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO AWARD OF ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS FEES RESULTING IN A TOTAL REVISED FEE CLAIMED OF $60,904.50
FACTS AND PROCEDURE:
This Court awarded a total of $9,684.83 in favor of the plaintiff in what initially appeared to be a minor motor vehicle accident in Hartford. The trial before this Court lasted less than one day. It should be noted, however, that this action was commenced as a small claims matter in which the defendant, the City of Hartford ("City") transferred the case from the small claims docket to the regular docket of the Superior Court. This, of course, made the City liable for attorneys fees based upon C.G.S. § 52-251a. The City appealed the decision of this Court, and the State Supreme Court assigned it to itself because of the nature of the law principles involved. There is more than one reason for attorneys fees to be awarded for the appellate work under said section of the statutes. See Stokes v. Norwich Taxi, 289 Conn. 465 (2008), and Forastiere v. Higbie, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford CV 02-0188362 May 4, 2007, (Taggart D. Adams, J.), and finally, counsel for the City at a hearing held on the Motions for Attorneys fees before this Court on July 30, 2009, the City conceded that "it does not dispute that plaintiff has a viable claim for attorneys fees."
ISSUES AND FINDINGS:
In determining what is a reasonable fee, Courts have considered the 12 factors set out in Steiner v. J.S. Builders, Inc., 39 Conn.App. 32, 38 (1998), which this Court will address: 1. Time and labor required:
The Court has reviewed the briefs of the plaintiff to the Appellate and Supreme Courts furnished by the plaintiff and the line of cases submitted by the defendant.
Looking at the affidavit of attorneys fees dated June 26, 2009, the Court hereby reduces the following hours:
7. Pull up and review cases cited in defendant's brief nine hours reduced to six hours.
8. Research cases for plaintiff's brief, seven hours reduced to four hours.
9. Prepare plaintiff's brief, 47 hours reduced to 24 hours.
12. Prepare for argument at Supreme Court including four moot court sessions, 13 hours reduced to 10 hours.
16. Research supplemental issue presented by the Court including statutory issues 25 hours reduced to 10 hours.
17. Prepare supplemental brief based on research 16 hours reduced to 8 hours: Supplemental reply dated July 12, 2009 to defendant's objection to award of additional attorneys fees 12 hours reduced to 6 hours.
Total hours claimed is 141.25 hours.
This is a reduction of 61 hours, leaving the total number of hours expended 80.25.
2. Novelty and difficulty of questions:
Because the Supreme Court took this case and reviewing the documents filed and the issue presented was a novel and somewhat difficult issue.
3. Skills required:
That of an experienced attorney which attorney Johnson is.
4. Conclusion of other employment: Not applicable.
No claim has been made under this number.
5. Customary fee for similar work:
This Court believes that $400 an hour is too high for what was involved and reduces it to $300 an hour.
6. Fee is fixed or contingent:
The plaintiff claims without opposition he has a contract for a fixed hourly rate.
7. Time limits imposed by client:
Not applicable.
8. Amounts involved and results obtained:
This works against a higher amount of attorneys fees since the original amount was only without attorneys fees $7,184.83.
9. Experience, reputation and ability of Attorney Johnson:
He has all of these but not to the extent of $400 an hour. It should be only $300 an hour.
10. Undesirability of the case:
Not really a factor since it went to the Supreme Court.
11. Nature and length of professional relationship with client:
No special relationship and a short relationship with client.
12. Awards in similar cases:
The award in this case meets the standard of awards in similar cases.
The plaintiff's attorney in his affidavits cited 129.25 hours of his time and an additional 12 hours for his supplemental claim. This totals 141.25 hours which at $400 per hour would total $56,500.
This Court has reduced the number of hours to 80.25 and at $300 per hour that equals $24,075 for attorneys fees. Added to that is the $3,750 paralegal time and $654.50 in copier expenses.
$ 654.50
This results in a total award of attorneys fees of $ 24,075.00 Paralegal fees $ 3,750.00 Copier expense Total award of attorney fees and cost $ 28,479.50
Judgment for attorneys fees and costs is so entered.