188 Conn. App. 21
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Underlying premises-liability action against Chester Housing Associates LP; Douglas Williams (Williams) was the partnership’s general and managing partner but not a named defendant.
- In Jan. 2016 Williams sent an inappropriate, sexualized email to defense counsel Kelly Reardon; police warned him not to contact her.
- On Apr. 27, 2017, outside the courtroom immediately before trial, Williams loudly made a sexual comment about Reardon heard by others; Reardon moved orally for sanctions.
- The court held hearings, found Williams’s email and hallway comment were made in bad faith to harass/intimidate Reardon and gain a litigation advantage, and ordered that Williams be sanctioned and that attorney’s fees be awarded (amount to be determined later).
- Williams filed a writ of error arguing the trial court exceeded its authority in sanctioning a nonparty for out-of-court conduct and that awarding fees was an abuse of discretion; the Appellate Court dismissed the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Maurice/Reardon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had inherent authority to sanction a nonparty for out-of-court bad-faith litigation misconduct | Inherent powers do not permit sanctioning a nonparty for conduct outside the courtroom | Court’s inherent powers extend to nonparties who are real parties in interest and substantially involved | The court may sanction a nonparty who is a real party in interest; Williams was such a person and could be sanctioned |
| Whether awarding attorney’s fees as a sanction for Williams’s out-of-court conduct was an abuse of discretion | Awarding fees was improper absent a showing the misconduct affected the litigation’s outcome and because restraint is required for nonparty/out-of-court conduct | Fees are appropriate where conduct is shown to be entirely without color and done in bad faith; amount must be proportional to harm and causally linked to misconduct | No abuse of discretion: court found bad faith (unchallenged), may award compensatory fees limited to fees caused by the misconduct; exact amount to be determined later |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (courts have inherent authority to impose sanctions, including attorney’s fees, for conduct that abuses the judicial process)
- Maris v. McGrath, 269 Conn. 834 (2004) (bad-faith exception permits fee awards where claims or conduct are entirely without color and made for improper purposes)
- Berzins v. Berzins, 306 Conn. 651 (2012) (high hurdle for bad-faith fee awards; requires clear evidence)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017) (fee awards under inherent power must be compensatory and causally linked to misconduct; but-for standard)
- O’Brien v. O’Brien, 326 Conn. 81 (2017) (remedial awards must not exceed reasonable value of injured party’s losses; trial court may use reasonable estimates)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (courts may enforce decorum and remove or sanction disruptive actors to maintain order)
- Ledyard v. WMS Gaming, Inc., 330 Conn. 75 (2018) (order finding a party liable for attorney’s fees is appealable final judgment even if amount is not yet determined)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mottolese, 261 Conn. 521 (2002) (discussion of sanctions against nonparties; reversal on other grounds)
- Corder v. Howard Johnson & Co., 53 F.3d 225 (9th Cir. 1994) (a court may impose attorney’s fees against a nonparty under its inherent sanctioning power)
- Helmac Products Corp. v. Roth (Plastics) Corp., 150 F.R.D. 563 (E.D. Mich. 1993) (articulated two-part test limiting inherent-power sanctions against nonparties: substantial interest in outcome and substantial participation)