Page 36 - CLT020121

36 ¦ FEBRUARY 1, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
BUSINESS TORTS
Court Grants Defendants’ Special
Motions to Dismiss Government
Official’s Defamation Action on Denial or management of the waste it has collected.
of Reimbursements
CASE: Farricker v. Turner
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6044844
COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
DATE: January 11, 2021 • PAGES: 25
In a defamation action brought by a senior official
within a high-profile governmental entity regard-
ing the denial of authorization of certain reim-
bursements, the court found nothing in plaintiff’s
affidavit to suggest that defendant Rooney told
anyone that the plaintiff “was a crook.” The court
granted Rooney’s special motion to dismiss. The
sections of the affidavit directed to Rooney reflect-
ed that she only spoke to officials and a law firm
hired to review reimbursements for “board duties”
for expenses such as cable TV and home internet,
and the only claimed-to-be-actionable statements
made by defendant were her denials of having au-
thorized in advance certain expenses that plaintiff
had claimed for reimbursement. Plaintiff failed to
establish probable cause that he would succeed in
his claims directed to Rooney, other than alleging
that Rooney lied when she denied authorizing cer-
tain reimbursements. The court also could not find
probable cause that plaintiff would prevail on his
intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
The claim that some of plaintiff’s reimbursements
had not been approved in advance was only of
concern to the extent that some reimbursements Plaintiff will also prevail against Couden, as
might have been excessive or improper. Finally, the there is no issue of fact as to the obligation in
court granted the special motion to dismiss as to the guarantee.
defendants Turner and Noble, finding that the ac-
tion was primarily motivated by those defendants’
communications with public officials and speak-
ing out about plaintiff’s perceived misconduct. Court Denies Motion to Strike
CONTRACTS
Contract Between Waste Management
Company and Waste Delivery Company
Broadly States Obligation to Pay for
‘All Materials and Services’
CASE: City Carting & Recycling Inc. v. Country Disposal Serv. LLC
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6046881
COURT OPINION BY: Kavanewsky
DATE: January 08, 2021 • PAGES: 4
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
Plaintiff City Carting & Recycling and defen-
dants Country Disposal Services and its prin-
cipal, Michael A. Couden, are all involved in
the waste industry. Country Disposal delivers
waste to plaintiff for the ultimate disposal
Country Disposal pays plaintiff for those dis-
posal or management services. Plaintiff ledgers
its activity in three accounts depending on the
type of waste or refuse, and it then invoices
Country Disposal on a monthly basis on each
of these three accounts. Country Disposal
stopped making payments on the invoices and
plaintiff brought an action alleging breach of
contract for the sum of $540,622, and for a
breach of the parties’ guarantee agreement by
Couden for the same amount. Country Dis-
posal claimed its agreement with plaintiff
was that it would be billed a fixed rate based
mainly on the tonnage of waste it delivered
to plaintiff and so certain charges billed on
the invoices were to be absorbed within that
tonnage charge. The court granted plaintiff ’s
application for a prejudgment remedy against
both defendants in the amount of $540,622,
and granted plaintiff ’s motion for disclosure
of assets by defendants. The court found that
plaintiff will prevail against Country Disposal
on the breach of contract claim. The language
in the agreement that Country Disposal obli-
gated itself to pay for “all materials and ser-
vices” that were invoiced is extremely broad.
Plaintiff gave Country Disposal advance no-
tice on rate changes and all invoices specified
the nature of the charges for the billings made.
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES • FEE DISPUTES
Individual Paragraphs of Complaint
CASE: R&R Pool & Home, Inc. v. Fong
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV-17-6032853
COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
DATE: January 06, 2021 • PAGES: 15
In an ongoing contractual dispute over a
lease, during a status hearing, the court was
alerted to the fact that two motions to strike
from defendants had never been ruled on.
Both parties asked the court to rule on them.
The defendants issued counterclaims against