BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Newtown Electric LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., Plaintiff; V. 3:22-cv-00651-VAB NEWTOWN ELECTRIC LLC, TIMBER HILL FARM LLC, BARBARA L. GAYDOSH, and GARY M. GAYDOSH, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER, ECF NO. 39.

On September 16, 2024, BMO Bank Harris (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for sanctions against Defendants Newtown Electric LLC and Gary M. Gaydosh (“Defendants”) for failure to comply with the Court’s Order Compelling Compliance, ECF No. 39. Defendants did not respond. In its Order Compelling Compliance, ECF No. 39, the Court directed Newtown Electric and Mr. Gaydosh to return the Collateral! by June 7, 2024 in accordance with the Court’s Final Order, ECF No. 34. Plaintiff states that Defendants have not yet complied with the Court’s directive to return Collateral by June 7, 2024, and have made efforts to impede recovery attempts. See Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 40. Plaintiff now requests attorney’s fees. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for sanctions and orders Defendants to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,146.18. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 107 (2017) ("Federal courts possess certain inherent powers, not conferred by rule or statute, to manage their own

| In its Ruling and Order on Renewed Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 34, the Court granted default judgement which included requiring Newtown Electric and Mr. Gaydosh to surrender or otherwise make available the remaining collateral □ namely the 2018 heritage dump body identified by serial number HS2245; 2019 Peterbilt Model 389 truck identified by VIN

an assessment of attorney's fees[,]... instructing a party that has acted in bath faith to reimburse legal fees and costs incurred by the other side." (internal citations omitted)). Having reviewed the submission for attorney’s fees, including the declaration of Richard J. Tannenbaum, Esq., ECF No. 40 at Exhibit E, the fees (including both the hourly rates sought and the

hours expended on the identified tasks) and costs requested are reasonable under the applicable law. See Howell v. Yale University, No. 3:22-cv-01160 (JHC), 2023 WL 4564409, at *2 (D. Conn. July 17, 2023) (“In assessing . . . the reasonable hourly rate[,] the Second Circuit has directed courts to ‘bear in mind all of the case-specific variables that [it] and other circuits have identified as relevant to the reasonableness of attorney’s fees[.]’ . . . In analyzing . . . the reasonable number of hours required[,] courts consider, among other things, the quality of the representation and the complexity of the work.” (internal citations omitted)); Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. Of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The reasonable hourly rate is the rate a paying client would be willing to pay. In determining what rate a paying client would be willing to pay, the district court should consider . . . that a reasonable,

paying client wishes to spend the minimum necessary to litigate the case effectively.”). Accordingly, the Court now enters an order compelling the following relief: (i) Newtown Electric and Mr. Gaydosh are directed to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees of $4,146.18 associated with their failure to comply with the Court’s Order, ECF No. 39. (ii) Newtown Electric and Mr. Gaydosh are to comply with the Final Order, ECF No. 34, and the Court’s Order Compelling Compliance, ECF No. 39, and return the Collateral to Plaintiff. (iii) Plaintiff may move for further relief as appropriate, including any specific sanctions as

permitted by law, as well as costs and attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this Motion and any further motion. /s/ Victor A. Bolden VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE