Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute over a foreclosure judgment. The plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, had a loan secured by a mortgage on her property. The defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., acquired the loan and later counterclaimed to foreclose the mortgage. The trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and remanded the case for the setting of new law days. On remand, the plaintiff objected to the defendant's motion to reset the law days, arguing that the judgment of strict foreclosure did not account for the substantial increase in property values that had occurred during the appeal. The trial court concluded that it had no authority to revisit the merits of the strict foreclosure judgment, as it was bound by the Appellate Court’s rescript order requiring the setting of new law days. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal with the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the trial court was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from entertaining the plaintiff’s request to modify the judgment of strict foreclosure and order a foreclosure by sale. The court also held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court lacked authority to entertain the plaintiff’s request. The court further held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff was required to file a motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and to present evidence that the value of the subject property had substantially increased since the date of the original judgment before the trial court could exercise that authority. The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wahba v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A man convicted of murder sued his former attorney and law firm for legal malpractice and fraud, alleging they failed to properly represent him in a federal civil rights action and a state habeas action. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims related to the habeas action, concluding they were not ripe for adjudication because the plaintiff's underlying criminal conviction had not been invalidated. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the legal malpractice claim but reversed with respect to the fraud claim.The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's legal malpractice claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Court's reliance on a previous case that a criminally convicted plaintiff's failure to obtain appellate or postconviction relief from his conviction prior to commencing a criminal malpractice action renders the action unripe and presents an issue of justiciability that implicates a court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, the Supreme Court determined that the question was whether a criminally convicted plaintiff who had not obtained appellate or postconviction relief from his conviction has alleged facts sufficient to state a valid cause of action for criminal malpractice. The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff's claim of criminal malpractice should have been the subject of a motion to strike rather than a motion to dismiss. The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed with respect to the plaintiff's claim of criminal malpractice and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cooke v. Williams" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the adoption of certain amendments to Fenwick’s zoning regulations by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Borough of Fenwick (the Commission). The plaintiffs, who owned real property in Fenwick, appealed the Commission's decision, arguing that the Commission had unlawfully adopted the amendments by failing to publish notice of its decision in a newspaper with a substantial circulation in Fenwick, as required by statute. The Commission moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was untimely. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Commission's failure to publish the amendment in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in Fenwick rendered it ineffective as a matter of law. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the Appellate Court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Commission properly published notice of its decision in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in Fenwick. The court adopted an availability-centered test for determining whether a newspaper has a substantial or general circulation in a municipality. The court considered factors such as the type of news covered by the publication, its general availability in the municipality, the frequency of distribution, the existence of any cost barriers to access, and whether residents are aware of its use for the publication of legal notices. Applying this test, the court found that the Press was a newspaper of substantial circulation in Fenwick. Consequently, the plaintiffs' zoning appeal, which was filed more than fifteen days after the date that notice of the Commission's decision was published, was required to be dismissed. View "9 Pettipaug, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, sought to recover damages from the defendants, Alexander Vik and his daughter, Caroline Vik, for their alleged interference with a business expectancy. The plaintiff was attempting to collect an approximately $243 million foreign judgment from a company, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), which the plaintiff claimed was controlled by Alexander. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had attempted to interfere with a Norwegian court’s order requiring the sale of SHI’s shares in a Norwegian software company, Confirmit, to partially satisfy the foreign judgment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the litigation privilege because they were based on communications made and actions taken in prior judicial proceedings. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded with direction to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.The Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment and remanded with direction to affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court held that the defendants could not prevail on their claim that the plaintiff’s appeal was rendered moot by virtue of the court’s decision in a previous case. The court also held that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the plaintiff’s claims against the defendants were barred by the litigation privilege. The court concluded that many of the tactics Alexander allegedly used to disrupt, delay, and otherwise interfere with the sale of Confirmit, including stacking Confirmit’s board of directors with family members and associates, submitting a disingenuous bid to acquire Confirmit, coordinating with his father to have the plaintiff’s execution lien deregistered, and forging and backdating the document purporting to grant Caroline a right of first refusal, occurred outside of the context of any judicial proceeding and, therefore, were not covered by the litigation privilege. View "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff, an employee of Frank Lill & Son, Inc., claimed to have sustained two separate injuries during his employment. He sent a written notice of claim to his employer and the Workers’ Compensation Commission. The employer, within twenty-eight days of receiving the plaintiff’s notice of claims, mailed a notice of intention to contest the plaintiff’s right to compensation benefits. However, the administrative law judge did not receive the notice of intention until after the twenty-eight day statutory period had elapsed. The plaintiff then filed a motion to preclude the defendants from contesting liability, arguing that the employer had failed to commence payment of the claims or to file a notice of intention to contest the claims within the required timeframe.The administrative law judge granted the plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the employer had failed to meet the requirements of the statute, and therefore, the defendants were presumed to have accepted the compensability of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries and were precluded from contesting his claims. The Compensation Review Board upheld the administrative law judge’s decision.The case was then brought before the Connecticut Supreme Court. The defendants argued that they had met their statutory obligation by mailing the notice within the statutory period, and that "mailing" should be considered the same as "filing" for the purposes of the statute. However, the court disagreed, stating that the statutory language was clear that the notice of intention to contest must be delivered, not just mailed, to the administrative law judge within the specified timeframe. The court also noted that the use of different terms in the same statute suggested that the legislature intended for the terms to have different meanings. The court affirmed the decision of the Compensation Review Board, ruling that the employer had not met its statutory obligation. View "Ajdini v. Frank Lill & Son, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Mercedes-Benz Financial and 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC, and its principal, Aniello Dizenzo. The plaintiff, Mercedes-Benz Financial, alleged that the defendants breached a motor vehicle lease agreement by failing to make payments. After the defendants failed to appear, the trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment and rendered a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants later moved to open and set aside the default judgment, arguing that the vehicle had serious defects, making it dangerous to operate, and that they had returned the vehicle to the dealership. They also claimed that they mistakenly thought the case had been resolved.The trial court denied the defendants' motion to open the judgment, concluding that the motion was untimely and had no basis. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which acknowledged that the trial court incorrectly determined that the motion was untimely but upheld the trial court's decision, concluding that it had not abused its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that it had no basis.The defendants then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to open. The Supreme Court found that the trial court's determination that the motion was untimely was incorrect, and this error likely affected the trial court's decision on the merits of the motion. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the lower court to reverse its judgment and conduct an evidentiary hearing on the defendants' motion to open the judgment. View "Mercedes-Benz Financial v. 1188 Stratford Avenue, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves two plaintiffs, Glen A. Canner and Louis D. Puteri, who separately sued a condominium association, Governors Ridge Association, Inc., alleging that the foundations supporting their respective units were defective. The units, part of a common interest community, were purchased by Canner and Puteri in 2001 and 2002 respectively. The defendant had affirmed its responsibility for any foundation settlement issues. However, despite the units suffering significant, uneven settling and the defendant hiring several companies to investigate potential repairs from 2012 to 2016, no repairs were ultimately made. The plaintiffs commenced their actions in 2016 and 2017, alleging that the defendant had negligently designed and constructed the foundations and had violated its duties under the Common Interest Ownership Act (CIOA) by failing to conduct necessary repairs.The trial court concluded that the CIOA claims were time-barred by the statutory three-year limitation period generally applicable to tort actions. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgments, concluding that the limitation period set forth in § 52-577 applied because the claims sounded in tort rather than contract. The Appellate Court also agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the declaration and bylaws created no duty to repair because the relevant declaration required the defendant to repair only insured common elements, and there was no requirement that the foundations themselves be insured.The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the Appellate Court properly applied the statute of limitations set forth in § 52-577 to the portion of the CIOA claims seeking recovery for negligence during the course of construction of the foundations. However, the Supreme Court found that the Appellate Court improperly upheld the trial court’s disposition, in favor of the defendant, of the claims that the defendant had violated its contractual duties under the bylaws to maintain, repair or replace common elements when it failed to effectuate repairs to the foundations. The Supreme Court concluded that the claims that the defendant breached its contractual duties imposed under the bylaws by failing to repair the foundations were governed by the six-year limitation period applicable to contract claims in § 52-576. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Canner v. Governors Ridge Assn., Inc." on Justia Law

This case involves a lieutenant with the Hartford Police Department who filed a bill of discovery against a blogger who writes about Hartford municipal governance. The plaintiff is seeking to compel the defendant to release data that would reveal the identities of anonymous commenters on the blog who posted allegedly defamatory statements about him. The plaintiff also wants the defendant's laptop and cellphone to be submitted for forensic analysis.The trial court granted the plaintiff's bill of discovery, stating that the plaintiff had shown probable cause for his defamation claim against the authors of certain anonymous comments. The court ordered that the parties should try to agree on a protective order and search protocols to safeguard the defendant's privacy during the forensic analysis. If they couldn't agree, the court would resolve the dispute. The defendant appealed the decision before any negotiations took place.The Supreme Court of Connecticut dismissed the defendant's appeal, stating that the trial court's decision was not an appealable final judgment. The Court explained that the final judgment rule applies to a pure bill of discovery, and the trial court's decision wouldn't become a final judgment until the scope of discovery was clearly defined either by the parties' agreement or by court order. In this case, the parties hadn't yet complied with the court's order to either agree on the terms of the protective order and search protocols or to return to the court for resolution of those issues. Therefore, the trial court's decision was not a final judgment. View "Benvenuto v. Brookman" on Justia Law

In a dispute between John Drumm, Chief of Police, et al. and the Freedom of Information Commission in Connecticut, the court was tasked with interpreting a provision of the Freedom of Information Act. The provision in question exempts from disclosure records of law enforcement agencies compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a crime, if the disclosure of such records would result in the disclosure of information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action. The case arose from a request for documents related to a 2010 unsolved murder case by a filmmaker who was working on a documentary about the case. The request was denied by the police department, and the filmmaker filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission. The commission ruled in favor of the filmmaker and ordered the documents be provided. The police department appealed the decision, arguing that the commission failed to apply the correct legal standard.The court held that a "prospective law enforcement action" refers to a future law enforcement action that has at least a reasonable possibility of occurring, meaning that the occurrence is more than theoretically possible but not necessarily likely or probable. The court also clarified that under the first prong of the exception, a respondent before the commission must establish only that it is at least reasonably possible that the information contained in a requested document will be used in support of an arrest or prosecution. Because the commission had not applied this standard and had made clearly erroneous factual findings, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings before the commission. View "Drumm v. Freedom of Information Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of former firefighters who retired from the city of Meriden and claimed damages from the city and the Meriden Municipal Pension Board for alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiffs, who retired in 2015, claimed that they should have received an increase in their pension benefits based on a 2% wage increase that was awarded retroactively in an arbitration process after the plaintiffs had retired. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants had breached the collective bargaining agreement by failing to recalculate the plaintiffs' pension benefits based on the retroactive wage increase.On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the defendants did not breach the collective bargaining agreement. This conclusion was based on the fact that the pension plan did not allow for the recalculation of pension benefits for retirees who voluntarily retired before the issuance of the arbitration award. The court noted that the pension plan only allowed for a retroactive adjustment of pension benefits for those who were forced to retire due to reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65. The court also held that the trial court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, rejecting the defendants' claim that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing the lawsuit. View "Stiegler v. Meriden" on Justia Law