Total Recycling Serv. of Conn. Inc. v. Conn. Oil Recycling Serv. Llc.
Decision Date | 07 June 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 32243.,32243. |
Citation | 20 A.3d 716,129 Conn.App. 296 |
Parties | TOTAL RECYCLING SERVICES OF CONNECTICUT, INC., et al.v.CONNECTICUT OIL RECYCLING SERVICES, LLC. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William J. Sweeney, for the appellant (defendant).Jonathan J. Klein, Bridgeport, for the appellees (plaintiffs).BEACH, ALVORD and SCHALLER, Js.SCHALLER, J.
The defendant, Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying its motion for attorney's fees, rendered on remand following the decision of this court in Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC, 114 Conn.App. 671, 970 A.2d 807 (2009). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion by (1) requiring it to itemize attorney's fees incurred for the litigation on three contracts and (2) denying appellate attorney's fees for its prior appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1
The following relevant facts and procedural history were described by this court in Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC, supra, 114 Conn.App. at 673, 970 A.2d 807.
[20 A.3d 719 , 129 Conn.App. 299]
Id., at 679–80, 970 A.2d 807. This court disagreed and, noting that the plaintiffs had “not challenged the jury's findings that Total Recycling breached the agreement to transfer its customer list and that Whitewing breached the agreement not to compete”; id., at 680, 970 A.2d 807; held that “[t]he attorney's fee clauses in these contracts did not require the defendant to prove more than breach.” Id., at 680–81, 970 A.2d 807.
This court remanded the case for further proceedings on the defendant's claim for attorney's fees, holding that Id., at 681, 970 A.2d 807.
Following the remand, the defendant filed a motion for attorney's fees with the trial court. The defendant attached to the motion an affidavit and itemized list of attorney's fees incurred in the course of the litigation. The list did not distinguish the items of work on the separate contracts with respect to which the defendant successfully counterclaimed. By memorandum of decision filed November 30, 2009, the court, Jones, J., refused to award any fees to the defendant because it concluded that it was “necessary for the defendant to identify which reasonable attorney's fees were incurred in prosecuting its breach of contract counterclaim with regard to the contracts that specifically provide for attorney's fees.” 2 The court allowed the defendant the opportunity to make the requisite showing at a future hearing.
The defendant filed a renewed motion for attorney's fees, attaching the same affidavit and list of attorney's fees incurred. On March 29, 2010, the court, Bear, J., held an evidentiary hearing, during which the defendant presented the testimony of an expert witness, William Gallagher, a trial attorney with many years of experience. Gallagher testified that it would be “extremely difficult” to sort out the attorney's fees based on the billing in the file because “no one itemized, and that's not the custom to itemize in that great detail.” Gallagher also testified that he believed that a decision of this court, Heller v. D.W. Fish Realty Co., 93 Conn.App. 727, 890 A.2d 113 (2006), allows for fees in any case where “services are intertwined in such a way that it's not possible to sort them out....”
Gallagher's testimony was the only testimony heard by the court, but the attorneys for both parties made arguments to the court. The defendant's attorney argued that he could not parse out his time spent on the three contracts and he does not keep track of his time in that manner. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant failed to satisfy the November 30, 2009 order.
On April 19, 2010, the court denied the defendant's motion for attorney's fees. The court held that the order requiring the defendant to identify the fees associated with the litigation of the two contracts providing for fees was the law of the case. The court also held that Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, 57 Conn.App. 189, 200, 752 A.2d 1098 (2000), governed in the present case, preventing the defendant from recovering all fees. The defendant has appealed.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Moasser v. Becker, 121 Conn.App. 593, 595, 996 A.2d 1200 (2010).
The defendant first claims that the court improperly refused to grant the defendant's motion for attorney's fees on the basis that it had not identified which attorney's fees were incurred in litigation of the contracts that allowed for such fees.3 The defendant argues that the court should not have applied the law of the case doctrine and that Heller, rather than Jacques All Trades Corp., governs the outcome of this case. We disagree.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) ACMAT Corp. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 576, 582, 923 A.2d 697 (2007).
In Jacques All Trades Corp. v. Brown, supra, 57 Conn.App. at 192, 752 A.2d 1098, the plaintiff brought breach of contract claims based on two separate and distinct transactions. The defendant successfully brought a counterclaim for breach under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42–110a et seq., arising out of one of the contracts. Id., at 193, 752 A.2d 1098. The defendant argued that she was entitled to “ all attorney's fees incurred in the defense of [the plaintiff's] action and the prosecution of her counterclaim, relying on [General Statutes] § 42–110g (d)....” (Emphasis in original.) Id., at 200, 752 A.2d 1098. This court upheld the trial court's ruling that the defendant was entitled to recover only the fees incurred for the prosecution of her CUTPA claim because § 42–110g (d) allows for the court to award attorney's fees “only for those expenses that were related to the prosecution of a CUTPA claim.” Id.
In Heller v. D.W. Fish Realty Co., supra, 93 Conn.App. at 727, 890 A.2d 113, the plaintiffs brought claims of breach of contract, negligence and violation of CUTPA for damages arising out of a real estate transaction. The plaintiffs were successful on all claims. Id., at 730, 890 A.2d 113. Subsequently, (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 735, 890 A.2d 113. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees brought under § 42–110g (d). This court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Total Recycling Servs. of Conn., Inc. v. Conn. Oil Recycling Servs., LLC., 18823.
...A divided Appellate Court upheld the trial court's denial of attorney's fees. Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC, 129 Conn.App. 296, 305, 20 A.3d 716 (2011). In the majority opinion, the Appellate Court first considered the defendant's a......
- R v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of The Town of Ridgefield., 32105.
-
Heyman Assocs. No. 5, L.P. v. Felcor TRS Guarantor, L.P.
...The denial of the motion was appealed, and it was affirmed by this court. See Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC, 129 Conn.App. 296, 305, 20 A.3d 716 (2011), rev'd, 308 Conn. 312, 63 A.3d 896 (2013). Our Supreme Court reversed this court......
-
Bernhard-Thomas Bldg. Sys. LLC v. Weitz Co.
...contract counterclaim. BT cites one Connecticut decision to support this proposition, see Total Recycling Services of CT, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC, 129 Conn. App. 296 (2011). This decision, however, does not address the issue of whether defendant must "distinguish bet......