Opinion
CV185023795S
12-06-2018
NKONOKI ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC v. Jill Gilbert CALLAHAN
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
PETER EMMETT WIESE, JUDGE
I
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The plaintiff, Nkonoki Entertainment Group, LLC (Dreams), is pursuing this civil action against the defendant, Jill Gilbert Callahan. The August 27, 2018 complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) quantum meruit, respectively.
Briefly stated, Dreams alleges that in 2009, it contracted to provide "Career Coach and Life Coach" services to Ms. Callahan for an initial fee of $140,000 per year. This fee thereafter increased to $180,000 on January 1, 2013. Dreams contends that Ms. Callahan paid the $140,000 fee for year 2009, but did not make the subsequent payments for years 2010 through 2017. Dreams alleges that Ms. Callahan currently owes a balance in the amount of $1,349,000.
In a pleading dated August 27, 2018, Dreams seeks a prejudgment remedy in the aforementioned amount (no. 100.31).
A hearing was held on the prejudgment remedy application on November 14, 2018. At the hearing, the parties presented sworn testimony of witnesses and an exhibit. Thereafter, the parties provided the court with posthearing memoranda.
II
DISCUSSION
A. Positions of the Parties
Dreams contends that it provided services to Ms. Callahan in connection with her contentious divorce from her husband. It maintains that these obligations flowed from a written memorandum of understanding that was executed in the spring of 2010. The services for which fees are claimed to be owed were allegedly provided in years 2010 through 2017. The total amount sought is $1,349,000.
Ms. Callahan contends that the parties contracted for a flat fee of $140,000 for services to be provided during the pendency of her divorce, no matter how long the process took. She maintains that after paying the one-time flat fee, she relied on Dreams’ services from 2009 up until 2012.
B. Analysis
General Statutes § 52-278d provides that a hearing shall be held upon an application for a prejudgment remedy. At this hearing, the defendant has the right to appear and be heard. General Statutes § 52-278d(a). The statute provides in relevant part that "[i]f the court, upon consideration of the facts before it and taking into account any defenses, counterclaims or setoffs ... finds that the plaintiff has shown probable cause that such a judgment will be rendered in the matter in the plaintiff’s favor in the amount of the prejudgment remedy sought and finds that a prejudgment remedy securing the judgment should be granted, the prejudgment remedy applied for shall be granted as requested or modified by the court." General Statutes § 52-278d(a)(4). At this hearing, "[t]he [plaintiff] does not have to establish that he [or she] will prevail, only that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim ... The court’s role in such a hearing is to determine probable success by weighing probabilities." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Spilke v. Spilke, 116 Conn.App. 590, 594 n.6, 976 A.2d 69, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 918, 984 A.2d 68 (2009).
A summary of the evidence is as follows. Nkonoki Entertainment Group is a marketing, consulting, and entertainment business. Live Your Dreams is a d/b/a of the former. It is a life coaching and family advocacy firm. These businesses have existed for almost nineteen years. Lisa Nkonoki is the managing member.
Ms. Callahan was formerly the president of an investment banking firm named Pentalpha Capital Group. The company was formed in 1995 and was owned by Ms. Callahan and her ex-husband. She resigned from her position in September 2009, at the commencement of divorce proceedings. Ms. Callahan described her state of mental health at that time as "traumatized" and "very emotionally vulnerable." (Nov. 14, 2018 Hr’g Tr., p. 60.) She further testified: "My [ex-]husband was very abusive, very coercive. He threatened to kill me. He hit me. He broke bones. I had three children that I needed to protect." Id.
Ms. Callahan met Ms. Nkonoki through a referral from her therapist in late 2008. They met at Ms. Callahan’s therapist’s office in January 2009. They verbally agreed to enter into a contract wherein Ms. Callahan would receive the services offered by Dreams to assist her in the difficult divorce process. The amount to be paid was $140,000. Ms. Callahan paid a down payment of $15,000 in January 2009. Dreams commenced providing services to Ms. Callahan.
In April 2010, Ms. Nkonoki presented Ms. Callahan with a document entitled "Memo of Understanding-January 2009." (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.) Ms. Callahan reviewed the document and informed Ms. Nkonoki that "this contract is not what we agreed to." (Nov. 14, 2018 Hr’g Tr., p. 62.) Ms. Callahan felt uncomfortable signing the document. Nevertheless, both parties signed it. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.) It is not dated. Id. The document sets forth a list of services to be provided to Ms. Callahan. It states in relevant part: "[f]ee of $140,000, all inclusive of private consultations, not to exceed 500 hours in any contracted one year time frame. Client has paid an initial retainer totaling U.S. $15,000.00 towards the yearly flat rate." Id.
Ms. Callahan has paid Dreams a total sum of $140,000. Dreams has not invoiced Ms. Callahan for additional fees. Dreams has not maintained records to reflect the number of hours of work performed in years for which additional compensation is presently sought. During years 2010 through 2011, there is probable cause to conclude that Dreams provided Ms. Callahan with numerous services to assist her in her divorce. Briefly stated, these services included dealing with attorneys, accountants, law enforcement officials, real estate professionals, and other professionals. Ms. Callahan accepted the services provided and found them to be helpful.
The court finds that there is probable cause to conclude that judgment will be rendered in favor of the plaintiff, because there is sufficient evidence presented, which indicates that the parties contracted for services to be provided during years 2009 through 2011, at a rate of $140,000 per year. Ms. Callahan has paid $140,000, leaving a balance of $280,000 owed for years 2010 through 2011.
III
CONCLUSION
The application for prejudgment remedy is granted in the amount of $280,000, having taken into consideration all defenses, counterclaims, and setoffs.
SO ORDERED.