Plaintiffs-Thaddeus Day Esq.
Defendants-Jeffrey Bennett Esq.
D. Warren Justice
the court are plaintiffs' request for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59 -essentially a motion to amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e) - plaintiffs' bill of costs,
and plaintiffs' application for attorney's fees.
Rule 59(e) motion is denied: (1) Although the court noted
that the amount overpaid "may" have been higher,
the overpayment found by a preponderance of the evidence was
$13, 500. (2) To the extent that plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration relies on Plaintiffs' Ex. 38, that
document is hearsay and was not admitted at trial. (3) To the
extent that plaintiffs are now asserting a claim for breach
of warranty, no such claim is contained in their complaint
and would in any event be subsumed by their claim for poor
workmanship, which the court addressed. (4) In all other
respects the court adheres to the analysis and rulings in its
order dated September 11, 2018 and entered on the docket the
were prevailing parties on one of their claims and are
entitled to recover the filing fee ($150.00) and service
costs. 14 M.R.S. § 1502-B(1), (2). The service costs
reflected in the court file total $52.30. Plaintiffs are also
seeking service costs for their writ of attachment but have
not submitted any documentation to substantiate that cost.
attorney is entitled to travel costs in the amount of $48.75.
14 M.R.S. § 1502-B(4).
respect to plaintiffs' request for the fees and expenses
incurred for their expert witness pursuant to 14 M.R.S.
§ 1502-C(1), the request is disallowed. Although the
court credited Douglas Hall's testimony as to the
deficiencies in workmanship he observed, that testimony did
not have to come from an expert. It could have come from any
competent observer. The court did not find Hall's repair
estimate to be credible and excluded a significant amount of
Hall's testimony because it had not been properly
designated and because it had not otherwise been disclosed to
defendants prior to trial.
although the quality of plaintiffs' photographs was poor,
the court did rely on those in evaluating the evidence, and
plaintiffs are entitled to $49.63 for visual aids. 14 M.R.S.
application for attorney's fees is denied. Plaintiffs
originally filed an application for attorney's fees in
the form of a July 19, 2018 affidavit from counsel that
stated, "To date, the total attorney and legal support
staff fees incurred by plaintiffs to prepare for and execute
the trial from the time of filing complaint are $18,
433." That affidavit did not specify in any way how many
hours had been spent or contain any breakdown of the work
that had been performed and for which fees were sought. It
did state that the bills would be made available in camera.
time that affidavit was filed, the court had not ruled on the
merits of the case. The court's September 11, 2018 order
ruled in favor of plaintiffs on their Unfair Trade Practice
Act claim but granted judgment for defendants on all the
other claims on plaintiffs' complaint. In light of the
court's ruling, and because defendants had not responded
to plaintiffs' attorney's fee claim, the court
instructed plaintiffs to resubmit their fee application ...