AC47591 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc. ("The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, brought this action against the defendants, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), and Alexander Vik, seeking to enforce an approximately $243 million foreign judgment (English judgment) rendered against SHI by an English court and to pierce the corporate veil of SHI in order to hold Vik personally liable for that judgment. The trial court, applying the substantive law of Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI), rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, and our Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 346 Conn. 564, 604, 294 A.3d 1 (2023).Thereafter, the trial court denied the defendants' postjudgment motions seeking approximately $11.5 million in prevailing party attorney's fees incurred in defense of this action, concluding that the issue of attorney's fees was a procedural matter governed by Connecticut law, which does not permit the recovery of such fees in this case. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred in denying their motions because the issue of whether they are entitled to attorney's fees is governed by TCI law. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Civil Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

SC21051 - Health Body World Supply, Inc. v. Wang ("This appeal requires us to resolve two previously unexamined issues regarding the proper construction and operation of General Statutes § 52-572o, which is the statute governing comparative responsibility and actions for contribution under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA), General Statutes § 52- 572m et seq. The plaintiffs, Health Body World Supply, Inc. (HBWS) and its insurance carrier, Landmark American Insurance Company (Landmark), brought this action for contribution against the defendant, Reed Wang, pursuant to § 52-572o (e) after paying $1.2 million to Judith Kissel in full satisfaction of the judgment in the underlying matter of Kissel v. Center for Women’s Health, P.C., Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, Docket No. FST-CV-12-6013562-S (January 3, 2019) (Kissel action), rev’d in part, 205 Conn. App. 394, 258 A.3d 677, cert. granted, 339 Conn. 916, 262 A.3d 139 (2021), and cert. granted, 339 Conn. 917, 262 A.3d 138 (2021) (appeals withdrawn January 11, 2022). The jury in the Kissel action assigned 80 percent of the responsibility for Kissel’s damages to HBWS and 20 percent of the responsibility to Wang. In the present action, HBWS seeks to recover from Wang his 20 percent share of the amount paid, including applicable interest and costs. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of HBWS.

On appeal, Wang renews his arguments, unsuccessful in the trial court, that the plaintiffs’ contribution action is foreclosed because Wang was not a party to the underlying product liability action and, therefore, does not fall within the scope of the comparative responsibility or contribution provisions of § 52-572o. In the alternative, Wang argues that the contribution action is untimely because it was brought more than one year after the judgment in the Kissel action became final. See General Statutes § 52-572o (e). We reject both arguments and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Civil Procedure,
• Insurance Law,
• Medical Malpractice Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC47732 - Charter Oak Health Center, Inc. v. Barcelona (“In this corporate governance dispute, the plaintiffs, Charter Oak Health Center, Inc. (Charter Oak), and Adrian Wood, Joel Cruz, Martin John, Eileen Alvarado, and Leslie Arroyo, in their capacity as members of the board of directors of Charter Oak and on behalf of Charter Oak, appeal from the judgment of the trial court dismissing their action against the defendants, Veronica Barcelona, Claudius McNish, and Lolita Young, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action. The plaintiffs claim that the court improperly dismissed the action because the individual plaintiffs have standing pursuant to General Statutes § 33-1089. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC21076 - White v. FCW Law Offices ("The plaintiff, Frank Charles White, brought this action against the defendants, FCW Law Offices and two John Does, seeking damages for identity theft pursuant to General Statutes § 52-571h (b) and unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The trial court rendered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff and awarded him compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000 on his identity theft claim and $300,000 in punitive damages on his CUTPA claim. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court had improperly failed to award him treble damages under § 52-571h (b). See White v. FCW Law Offices, 228 Conn. App. 1, 2, 323 A.3d 406 (2024). The Appellate Court agreed but concluded that the plaintiff could not recover both punitive damages under CUTPA and treble damages under § 52-571h (b) because such an award would violate the principle that a plaintiff is entitled to recover only once for losses sustained in connection with the same transaction, occurrence or event. See id., 6–7, 10. The Appellate Court reversed in part the trial court's judgment and remanded for vacatur of both the punitive and compensatory damages awards and to award the plaintiff treble damages in the amount of $450,000 for identity theft. Id., 11.

On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that he could not recover both punitive damages under CUTPA, General Statutes § 42-110g (a), and treble damages under the identity theft statute, § 52-571h (b). We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC21072 - Clinton v. Aspinwall (Breach of contract; “The defendants’ principal claim on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error by improperly interpreting an exculpatory clause in CCP’s operating agreement as imposing affirmative duties on the defendants and instructing the jury in accordance with that flawed interpretation. They also claim that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the plaintiff’s expert, Kenneth Pia, to testify about CCP’s capital reserve. We agree with the defendants on their first claim but disagree with them on their second claim. Because the error on their first claim was not harmless, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for a new trial.”)

• Concurrence

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC47452 - Birch Hill Recovery Center, LLC v. High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. (“On appeal, the plaintiff does not argue that the court erred in its determination that the defendant met its initial burden under the first prong of § 52-196a (e) (3). See footnote 2 of this opinion. Instead, the plaintiff claims that the court erred by dismissing the action because it established that there is probable cause that it will prevail on its claims against the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiff contends that (1) the defendant’s efforts to challenge the facility in court and administrative proceedings constituted ‘‘sham’’ litigation that is not protected by the first amendment to the federal constitution or the state constitution, (2) the absolute litigation privilege does not bar the plaintiff’s claims, and (3) the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant’s conduct amounted to tortious interference with business relations. We disagree with the plaintiff’s claim that it established probable cause that it will prevail on its claim that the defendant’s challenges to the facility constituted sham litigation. We, therefore, conclude that the court did not err in its determination that the defendant’s conduct was protected by the first amendment. Because that conclusion is sufficient to uphold the dismissal of the complaint, we need not address the plaintiff’s other challenges to the judgment of dismissal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

The 2024 edition of our research guide on Pseudonyms and Fictitious Names in Connecticut Courts has been added to our research guides web page.

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

AC46348 - Rubin v. Brodie (“We agree with the plaintiffs’ first claim and conclude specifically that the court improperly determined that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain a derivative action to enforce the rights of the plaintiff LLCs in light of the court’s conclusion that their complaint sufficiently alleged demand futility. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the individual plaintiffs’ derivative action. We disagree with the plaintiffs’ second and third claims and therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff LLCs’ and the individual plaintiffs’ direct actions. We decline to review the plaintiffs’ fourth claim.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46709 - White v. FCW Law Offices (“The plaintiff, Frank Charles White, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in his favor against the defendants, FCW Law Offices and two John Does, following a hearing in damages on his civil action seeking damages for identity theft pursuant to General Statutes § 52-571h (b) and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court failed to comply with § 52-571h (b) when it did not award him treble damages under § 52-571h. We reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46505 - Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC v. Duong ("In this summary process action, the plaintiff, Gateway Development/East Lyme, LLC, leased property located at 295 Flanders Road in East Lyme (premises) and subleased the premises to the defendants, Anh Duong doing business as Daddy's Noodle Bar and Daddy's Noodle Bar 2, LLC. The defendants appeal from the trial court's judgment of possession rendered in favor of the plaintiff. It is undisputed that the defendants failed to pay rent in a timely manner. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff was not required to provide them with a pretermination notice and an opportunity to cure their default for nonpayment of rent within ten days of such notice. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC46467 - Meineke Bristol, LLC v. Premier Auto, LLC ("Premier Auto, LLC (Premier Auto), and Patrick Flynn appeal from the judgments rendered by the trial court in four related civil actions that were consolidated for trial. The actions encompass various claims by multiple entities concerning the sale by Vazhayil Babu of three businesses as well as associated leases, notes, and guarantee agreements to Premier Auto. On appeal, Premier Auto and Patrick Flynn claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it precluded them from presenting certain evidence. Premier Auto also claims that the court erred in determining that Premier Auto failed to prove its breach of contract cause of action. For the reasons set forth subsequently in this opinion, we conclude that the portion of the appeal concerning the first claim is moot and must be dismissed. With respect to the remaining claim in this appeal, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Landlord / Tenant Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20821, SC20823 - Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy (“These appeals arise from a dispute over whether the defendants misappropriated the trade secrets of the plaintiff, Dur-A-Flex, Inc., in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), General Statutes § 35-50 et seq. After a bench trial, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on certain of its claims and for several defendants on other claims.” The plaintiff appeals from the judgment in favor of the defendants Indue Sales and Services, Inc. (Indue), Christopher Krone, Engineered Coatings, Inc. (ECI), and Merrifield Paint Company, Inc. (Merrifield). The defendants Steven Lipman, Durafloor Industrial Flooring & Coating, Inc. (Durafloor), and ProRez Performance Resins and Coatings, LLC (ProRez), appeal from the judgment against them in favor of the plaintiff. In turn, the plaintiff cross appeals, challenging a number of adverse rulings. We conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that the plaintiff was not required to prove that Lipman and, through him, Durafloor and ProRez, had knowledge of the plaintiff’s trade secrets and used that knowledge in order to establish the elements of misappropriation under General Statutes § 35-51 (b) (2) (B) (iii). The case must therefore be remanded for a new trial limited to that issue. We further conclude that the trial court applied an incorrect standard when it crafted the monetary and injunctive relief as to Lipman, Durafloor, and ProRez. If the trial court determines on remand that those defendants had knowledge of and used the plaintiff’s trade secrets, it must then apply the correct standard. Finally, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that the noncompete agreement between the plaintiff and the named defendant, Samet Dy (Samet), was unenforceable because continued employment can never constitute consideration for a noncompete agreement. The judgment as to the breach of the noncompete agreement claim must herefore be reversed, and the trial court must determine on remand whether there was sufficient consideration for the noncompete agreement and, if so, whether Samet breached the agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.”)

SC20822 - Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy (“This appeal arises from a dispute between the plaintiff, Dur-A-Flex, Inc., a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, and the named defendant, Samet Dy, a former employee of the plaintiff, over whether the defendant misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), General Statutes § 35-50 et seq. The plaintiff brought this action, claiming that the defendant had breached his noncompete agreement with the plaintiff, misappropriated the plaintiff’s trade secrets in violation of CUTSA, and breached his duty of confidentiality. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement and breach of the duty of confidentiality claims. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the trial court improperly rendered judgment for the defendant on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim on the ground that it was unenforceable for lack of consideration, (2) even if the noncompete agreement was invalid, it became enforceable when the defendant orally reaffirmed his promise not to compete, and (3) the trial court improperly rendered judgment for the defendant on the breach of the duty of confidentiality claim on the ground that it was preempted by CUTSA. With respect to the plaintiff’s first claim, we conclude that the trial court incorrectly determined that the noncompete agreement was unenforceable as a matter of law and that the case must be remanded for further proceedings on that issue. We reject the plaintiff’s second and third claims. We therefore reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.”

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20777 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik ("The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, has spent the last decade attempting to collect from a nonparty, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), an approximately $243 million foreign judgment (English judgment) resulting from an unpaid margin call in 2008. In Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 346 Conn. 564, 294 A.3d 1 (2023), the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to pierce SHI's corporate veil and to hold the defendant Alexander Vik (Alexander) jointly and severally liable with SHI for the English judgment. Id., 568–69. While that case was pending in the trial court, the plaintiff commenced the present action against Alexander and his daughter, the defendant Caroline Vik (Caroline), alleging tortious interference with business expectancy and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., on the basis of the defendants' alleged efforts to interfere with the order of a Norwegian courtrequiring the sale of SHI's shares in a Norwegian software company in partial satisfaction of SHI's debt to the plaintiff. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that it was barred by the litigation privilege. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's decision and directed the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 214 Conn. App. 487, 511, 281 A.3d 12 (2022). We granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the plaintiff's complaint was barred by the litigation privilege. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 345 Conn. 964, 964–65, 285 A.3d 388 (2022). During oral argument before this court, the defendants argued that this case was rendered moot by our decision in Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 564, which we issued after the parties had filed their briefs in this case. We conclude that the case is not moot and that the plaintiff's complaint is not barred by the litigation privilege. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC45631, AC45632 - Lyons v. Birmingham Law Office, LLC (“The plaintiff, Justine Lyons, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the underlying action against the defendants Birmingham Law Office, LLC, and Attorney Matthew Birmingham (Birmingham defendants); and Marylou Scofield, PC, and Attorney Marylou Scofield (Scofield defendants), for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) personal jurisdiction over the defendants was not conferred under our state’s long arm statute, General Statutes § 52-59b, and (2) exercising jurisdiction over the defendants would violate the due process requirements of the United States constitution because they have insufficient ‘‘minimum contacts’’ with the state. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Probate Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC46023 - National Bank Trust v. Yurov (“The defendant Sergey Belyaev appeals from the trial court’s denial of his second motion to open and dismiss or stay the enforcement of a certified foreign judgment filed by the plaintiff, National Bank Trust. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied the motion to open the judgment pursuant to General Statutes § 50a-34 (b) (3). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45707 - E. I. du Pont de Numours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp. (“This breach of contract case, which was commenced by the plaintiff, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), in 2014, was first tried to the trial court in 2018, after which the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, Chemtura Corporation, on the ground that DuPont failed to strictly comply with the notice provisions of an asset purchase agreement (APA) between the parties. Our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings on the breach of contract claims. See E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Chemtura Corp., 336 Conn. 194, 218, 244 A.3d 130 (2020). Following its review of the record from the first trial and further briefing from the parties, the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) the court erred in rejecting its breach of contract claims as to certain fire protection systems in that it failed to determine the applicable law and apply that law to the evidence to determine whether those fire protection systems violated the Arkansas State Fire Code, and (2) the court misinterpreted the applicable federal regulations and improperly concluded that those regulations did not require the replacement of certain refrigeration units that leaked ozone depleting substances at rates exceeding the statutory threshold for several consecutive years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20642 - Companions & Homemakers, Inc. v. A&B Homecare Solutions, LLC ("This is an appeal from a judgment, rendered after a bench trial, awarding damages to the plaintiff, Companions and Homemakers, Inc. (Companions), for tortious interference with contractual and business relations and a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The defendant, A&B Homecare Solutions, LLC (A&B), doing business as Northwest Homecare, raises four claims of error: (1) the trial court improperly found that A&B's misrepresentations were tortious because it did not owe a legal duty of disclosure to Companions, (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish that A&B's allegedly tortious interference caused Companions to suffer any losses or damages, (3) there was no violation of CUTPA because there was no tortious interference, and (4) the trial court improperly found that A&B had tortiously interfered with noncompete agreements between Companions and its employees because those agreements are void as against public policy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court."

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC20647 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (“The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank), brought this action against the defendants, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), and Alexander Vik, SHI’s sole shareholder and director, seeking, inter alia, to enforce an approximately $243 million foreign judgment (English judgment) against Vik. Following a five day trial to the court, the trial court denied Deutsche Bank’s requested relief and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, Deutsche Bank claims that the trial court improperly declined to pierce SHI’s corporate veil and to hold Vik jointly and severally liable with SHI for the English judgment. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45070 - Russo v. Thornton ("The defendants, Brett W. Thornton (Brett), ProxySoft Worldwide, Inc. (ProxySoft Worldwide), and ProxySoft Direct, Inc. (ProxySoft Direct), appeal from the judgment of the trial court (1) granting an application for a turnover and charging order filed by the plaintiffs, Home Dental Care, Inc., Thornton International, Inc., and Robert D. Russo, acting in his capacity as executor of the estate of Thomas F. Thornton, and (2) denying Brett's motion to vacate a judgment lien and a financial institution execution. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) incorrectly concluded that it had rendered a final judgment that gave rise to the postjudgment enforcement remedies pursued by the plaintiffs, and (2) improperly ordered injunctive relief and continued a receivership as part of the turnover and charging order. We conclude that ProxySoft Direct is not aggrieved by the judgment from which the defendants have appealed, and, therefore, we dismiss the portion of the appeal filed by ProxySoft Direct. As to the remainder of the appeal, filed by Brett and ProxySoft Worldwide, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44537 - Konover Development Corp. v. Waterbury Omega, LLC (“The defendant Waterbury Omega, LLC appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for a prejudgment remedy in favor of the plaintiff, Konover Development Corporation, upon a finding of probable cause that the defendant had breached an oral agreement for the plaintiff's procurement, management and accounting of building/rooftop wireless telecommunications agreements on behalf of the defendant. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had established probable cause in light of its defenses that enforcement of the oral agreement was barred by (1) General Statutes § 20-325a, (2) the rule against perpetuities, and (3) the statute of frauds. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44586 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik (“The defendants, Alexander Vik (Alexander) and Caroline Vik (Caroline), appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to dismiss, in which they asserted that the claims brought by the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, were barred by the litigation privilege. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the litigation privilege does not bar the plaintiff's claims of tortious interference with business expectancy and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law