Plaintiff K.C. was a former student at a New Jersey high school and Defendant Christopher Doyle was her teacher at the same high school. While in college, she received a message from a former classmate that her intimate photos were being shared on a website called Anon-IB. Investigation into the matter led K.C. to learn that the images, which she had shared with her boyfriend (whose phone had been stolen), were posted from Doyle’s IP address. K.C. sued Doyle, claiming a violation of the invasion of privacy statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:58D-1; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and common law invasion of privacy by intrusion on seclusion. In K.C. v. Doyle, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 415 (App. Div. Mar. 18, 2025), the issue before the Appellate Division was whether the trial court was wrong in denying Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees and costs due to a low jury award.
Following a jury trial, Doyle was found liable under the invasion of privacy statute and common law invasion of privacy and K.C. was awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages but no punitive damages. Thereafter, K.C. made an application to recover her attorney’s fees and costs totaling $245,667.74. This amount included a request for attorney’s fees, fee enhancement, and court costs. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion to recover these fees under the invasion of privacy statute. Plaintiff filed an appeal alleging that the trial court had abused its discretion in declining to award the attorney’s fees.
Upon appeal, the Appellate Division agreed with Plaintiff. The court noted that the invasion of privacy statute provides that the court “may award” a plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs. The Court noted that while the statute does not require a court to award a plaintiff attorney’s fees, it does authorize a court to make such an award where appropriate.
Here, the Appellate Division found that the trial court made a mistake and relied on irrelevant factors to decide that Plaintiff should not be permitted to recover attorney’s fees and costs. According to the Court, there was no provision in the statute which prevented recovery of attorney’s fees based on the court’s view that the jury’s low award and refusal to award punitive damages was an indication of what the jury thought of the arguments the party made to the jury.
The Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the limited result that the jury gave to K.C. supported awarding no fees. The Court observed that a court should not reject a fee award based on the fact that the jury’s damages award was low or only award fees proportionately to the amount of damages a plaintiff recovered.
Further, the Court observed that Rule of Professional Conduct RPC 1.5(a) applicable to attorneys provides factors that should be considered in determining whether the fee sought was reasonable. According to the Appellate Division, the trial court failed to consider these factors, instead, considered matters outside the record including conjecture that the jury’s verdict suggested Doyle’s violation was minor. Additionally, the Appellate Division noted that the trial court failed to consider the certification submitted by K.C.’s attorneys, which included copies for time entries and expanded on the contingency fee arrangement between K.C. and her counsel.
Therefore, the Court reversed the trial court’s order denying Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees and remanded the matter back to the trial court. The Appellate Division ordered the trial court upon remand to conduct a review of the details provided by the attorneys and determine the amount of fees and costs to be awarded.
