Negron v. Patriot Auto Sales, LLC

• Decision Date: 17 September 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL CASE NO. 3:17-cv-583 (JCH)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: CORALYS NEGRON and FRANCISCO NEGRON, Plaintiffs, v. PATRIOT AUTO SALES, LLC and JASON WINER, Defendants.

CORALYS NEGRON and FRANCISCO NEGRON, Plaintiffs, v. PATRIOT AUTO SALES, LLC and JASON WINER, Defendants.

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:17-cv-583 (JCH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SEPTEMBER 17, 2019

RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

I. INTRODUCTION

Following judgment in their favor, plaintiffs Coralys and Francisco Negron have moved for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $36,792 and an order for post-judgment interest. See Motion for Attorney's Fees and Post-judgment Interest (Doc. No. 93), at 1; Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Post Judgment Interest ("Mot. for Attys' Fees") (Doc. No. 93-1). Defendant Jason Winer ("Winer") opposes that Motion. See Memorandum in Opposition ("Def.'s Opp.") (Doc. No. 96).

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Post-Judgment Interest is GRANTED in part.

II. BACKGROUND

Coralys and Francisco Negron (collectively, "the Negrons") initiated this action in connection with the sale of a used car in 2017. See Complaint (Doc. No. 1). To briefly summarize the facts, Coralys Negron purchased a vehicle from Winer in 2016. See Bench Trial Ruling and Renewed Motion for Judgment ("Bench Trial Ruling") (Doc. No. 86). Although she was led to believe the cash price for the vehicle was $8,500, the purchase order and other documentation set that price at $8,995. Id. at 4 (citing Pl.'s Ex. 2). In addition, the court found that Coralys's signatures were forged in certain places on the Purchase Order, including paragraphs providing that the vehicle was sold "as is," with no implied warranties. Id. at 6 (citing Pl.'s Ex. 4; Pl.'s Ex. 2). Contrary to Winer's representations, there were several problems with the vehicle, including that the oil feed line was leaking, the engine was making a knocking noise, the struts were leaking, and the air conditioner needed to be replaced. Id. at 7 (citing Pl.'s Ex. 8).

The Negrons brought several claims against Winer, including: violations of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"); breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under section 42a-2-314 of the Connecticut General Statutes and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("Magnuson-Moss"), 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d); breach of express warranty; violations of Connecticut's Retail Installment Sales Finance Act ("RISFA"); civil forgery; and violations of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat § 42-110g(d). Id. at 8. They asserted the same causes of action—except civil forgery—against Patriot Auto Sales, which permitted Winer to operate one of its dealerships. Id. In May 2019, the court awarded a total of $7,132.89 to plaintiffs, for which Winer and Patriot Auto Sales are jointly and severally liable, for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violation of RISFA, and violation of CUTPA. Id. at 36.

Plaintiffs now seek attorney's fees and post-judgment interest pursuant to CUTPA and Magnuson-Moss. See Mot. for Attys' Fees at 2. Winer opposes that Motion, arguing that he is not liable for fees that are not related to the CUTPA claim against him. Def.'s Opp. at 3. Winer further argues that the billable rate for paralegals,as calculated by the plaintiffs, is unreasonable, id. at 5, and that the court should exclude the legal fees of Attorney Mahoney as duplicative, id. at 6.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act

1. Work related to the CUTPA claim

Coralys and Francisco Negron seek attorneys' fees under Magnuson-Moss and CUTPA. Pursuant to CUTPA,

In any action brought by a person under this section, the court may award, to the plaintiff, in addition to the relief provided in this section, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees based on the work reasonably performed by an attorney and not on the amount of recovery.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(d). Plaintiffs bear the burden of "establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The district court should provide a "concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award." Id.

As Connecticut courts have explained, attorneys' fees are "integral to effecting" the policy behind CUTPA, "namely, to encourage litigants to act as private attorneys general and to bring actions for unfair or deceptive trade practices." Gill v. Petrazzuoli Bros., Inc., 10 Conn. App. 22, 33 (1987); see also Fabri v. United Techs. Int'l, Inc., 193 F. Supp. 2d 480, 486 (D. Conn. 2002) (explaining that "the purpose of the fee-shifting statute" is "to encourage the prosecution of meritorious claims for violation of the substantive provisions of CUTPA.")

An award of fees under CUTPA "is committed to the discretion of the trial court." Fabri v. United Techs. Int'l, Inc., 387 F.3d 109, 128 (2d Cir. 2004). A court can awardfees under CUTPA "only for those expenses that were related to the prosecution of the CUTPA claim" or claims that are factually interrelated. Fabri, 387 F.3d at 130 (quoting Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, 57 Conn. App. 189 (2000)).

Plaintiffs have submitted, as Exhibit A to their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Post-judgment Interest, a Pre-Bill Worksheet listing the actions for which counsel billed in this case. See Mot. for Atty's Fees, Ex. A. Winer argues that several line items on the Pre-Bill Worksheet should not be included in the total attorney's fees because they are not sufficiently related to the CUTPA claim. The court agrees in part. First, Winer identifies several items related only to the prosecution of the Motion for Default and Judgment against Patriot Auto Sales. See generally Def.'s Opp. at 4 (citing Def.'s Opp., Exs. G-I). The facts underlying the Motion for Default—that Patriot Auto Sales failed to appear in this civil case—are unrelated to the facts that give rise to the underlying violation—that Winer misled the Negrons about the price of the car. Hours billed for attorney work on the Motion for Default against Patriot Auto Sales are not reasonably "related to the prosecution of the CUTPA claim" against Winer. Thus, the court deducts $3,422.50 from the total amount sought. Fabri, 387 F.3d at 130.

Winer also argues that several items related to amending the Complaint to add forgery claims should not be included. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Winer was the party who committed the forgery in question. See Bench Trial Ruling at 17 (reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that Winer was the only person to handle the relevant documents or that the forged signatures matched his handwriting). The court ultimately concluded that Winer violated CUTPA by advertising the car for $8,500 butselling it to the plaintiffs for $8,995. Id. at 24 (citing section 42-110b-28(b)(1) of the Connecticut Agencies Regulations, which makes it a per se violation of CUTPA for car dealers to sell vehicles for more than their advertised price). This finding was not factually related to the civil forgery claim, which was based on a distinct set of allegations. Because the court can only award attorney's fees pursuant to CUTPA for work reasonably performed and related to the CUTPA claim, it will not award fees for work solely related to the civil forgery claim. Therefore, the court deducts $710 dollars from the total amount sought from Winer.¹

However, the court disagrees with Winer's arguments that items identified in his Exhibits A and B are not sufficiently related to the CUTPA claim. Exhibit A includes several entries that describe the Negrons' counsel meeting with their clients or drafting documents that applied to the litigation in general. See Def.'s Opp., Ex. A (listing, inter alia, "conf w/ Coralys Negron and Carol;" "telephone interview of Francisco Negron;" "prepare demand letter;" "review and evaluate file and readiness for revocation / litigation"). This work enabled counsel to understand the facts underlying the interrelated claims in the lawsuit including the CUTPA claim. Exhibit B includes entries that include "research into the current operator of Patriot [Auto]" and conversations with the client regarding the vehicle. Def's. Opp, Ex. B. This general research was also intended to obtain more information about the CUTPA claim or facts that are interrelatedwith that claim. See Fabri, 387 F.3d at 109. That the research in question ultimately supported multiple legal theories does not mean it must be subtracted from the total amount of attorneys' fees under CUTPA. See Russell v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 200 Conn. 172, 195 (1986) (concluding, under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, that there is "no such rule" that "an award of attorney's fees must automatically be reduced if its recipient fails to prevail on all of his claims"); Bristol Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 127 F. Supp. 2d 64, 69 (D. Conn. 2000) (discussing Russell and citing cases that applied its reasoning in CUTPA cases).

Finally, Winer challenges the inclusion of an amount for work not yet done related to enforcing the CUTPA claim. Attorney Blinn has filed a declaration explaining that he expects to spend three hours reviewing Winer's opposition to the Motion for Attorneys' Fees and collecting on the judgment. That amount of time is a reasonable estimate of how long it might take an attorney to review the opposition, draft and file a reply, and collect on the judgment. Further, Connecticut courts have found Attorney Blinn's hourly rate reasonable. See, e.g., A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. Oteng, No. cv-166031616, 2017 WL 481768, at *4 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 3, 2017) (finding Attorney Blinn's fees reasonable in that case based on the quality of his work and the result for his client); A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. v. James Saint Paul, No. CV166031881, 2016 WL 8135391, at *7 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 30, 2016) (same), aff'd sub nom. A Better...