Laura Piao v. William Smith and Jennings Smith Investigations, Inc.
683 F. App'x 55
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Laura Piao contracted with William Smith / Jennings Smith Investigations, Inc.; dispute arose over billing, retainer, and services provided.
- Piao sued raising breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, CUTPA violation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress; defendants counterclaimed.
- At trial, district court granted Rule 50(a) judgment as a matter of law for defendants on the CUTPA claim at the close of Piao’s case; remaining claims went to the jury.
- Jury returned verdict for Piao on the implied covenant claim and rejected defendants’ counterclaims; Piao was awarded $8,250.
- Piao appealed the Rule 50(a) dismissal of her CUTPA claim, arguing defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices and caused an ascertainable loss.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the evidence insufficient to show unfair/deceptive conduct or an ascertainable loss under CUTPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants engaged in unfair or deceptive acts under CUTPA | Defendants billed deceptively (false invoices, rounding up calls, retained nonrefundable retainer), website misled about management/national offices | Billing practices and website statements were not deceptive or tied to public interest; contract disclosed nonrefundable retainer; alleged overcharge immaterial | No CUTPA violation; evidence insufficient to show conduct that offends public policy or is immoral/unscrupulous |
| Whether plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss as required by CUTPA | Piao suffered monetary loss from billing, loss of retainer, and other charges | Alleged losses were de minimis relative to total bill or barred by contract terms | No ascertainable loss shown; small overcharge and nonrefundable retainer not substantial injury |
| Whether ordinary breach of contract can support CUTPA claim | Breach here reflected unfair practices warranting CUTPA relief | Mere breach without aggravating conduct is insufficient for CUTPA | Held: breach alone, absent unethical or unscrupulous conduct, does not establish CUTPA liability |
| Standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) | Piao contended reasonable jury could find CUTPA violation from evidence presented | Defendants contended reasonable jury could not so find; district court applied Rule 50(a) at close of Piao’s case | Affirmed: de novo review; court may grant JML where no legally sufficient basis for reasonable jury to find for plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Legg v. Ulster Cty., 820 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2016) (standard for Rule 50 judgment as a matter of law)
- ING Glob. v. United Parcel Serv. Oasis Supply Corp., 757 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2014) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant on Rule 50)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (Rule 50 and evaluation of jury verdict standards)
- Meloff v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2001) (cautious application of JML)
- Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208 (Conn. 2008) (elements of a CUTPA claim)
- Web Press Srvs. Corp. v. New London Motors, Inc., 205 Conn. 479 (Conn. 1987) (small monetary defects insufficient to show substantial injury for CUTPA purposes)
- Naples v. Keystone Bldg. & Dev. Corp., 295 Conn. 214 (Conn. 2010) (contractual breach alone does not constitute CUTPA violation without unethical or reckless conduct)