Noel v. RIBBITS, LLC
132 Conn. App. 531
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Noel and Wildowsky sued Ribbits, LLC et al. for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, assault and battery, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; jury found for plaintiffs on discrimination claims but awarded limited damages (Noel: $1600 economic; no emotional distress; Wildowsky: none).
- Plaintiffs moved for attorney’s fees under Practice Book § 11-21 and General Statutes § 46a-104; demand was $160,731.25 in fees and $4,997.84 in costs.
- Trial court awarded attorney’s fees solely based on a one-third contingency provision, granting Noel $533.33 and denying fees to Wildowsky due to no damages.
- Fee agreements contain a clause providing one-third of the entire settlement or judgment or an amount equal to reasonable fees, whichever is greater, for successful resolutions.
- Plaintiffs appealed, challenging the court’s exclusive reliance on the contingency provision and seeking a reasonableness analysis of fees.
- Court reverses and remands to determine reasonable attorney’s fees consistent with the fee agreements and applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fee award was improper for relying only on contingency terms. | Noel/Wildowsky argue the court ignored reasonableness provisions. | Defendants contend fees should reflect contingency terms. | Yes; court erred by not considering reasonableness beyond contingency. |
| Whether the fee determination should include a reasonableness analysis under standard factors. | Agrees to Johnson factors and lodestar adjustments. | Argues contingency suffices for award. | Yes; reasonableness analysis required using Johnson factors. |
| Whether remand to the original trial judge is proper for fee reasonableness. | Jurist best position to assess reasonableness. | Remand to trial judge appropriate. | Remanded to the trial judge to assess reasonableness of fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Chaisson, 277 Conn. 319 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard in fee awards; factors beyond damages matter)
- Ernst v. Deere & Co., 92 Conn.App. 572 (2005) (Johnson factors adopted for fee adjustment in Connecticut)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (twelve factors for evaluating attorney’s fees)