Page 37 - CLT020121

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS FEBRUARY 1, 2021 ¦ 37

the plaintiff, which included motions to strike CREDITORS’ AND DEBTORS’ RIGHTS •
specific paragraphs and a motion to strike at-
torneys’ fees. The court found that a motion REAL ESTATE

to strike does not operate to allow the court Court Grants Motion to Dismiss for
to strike a claim paragraph-by-paragraph, Prior Pending Foreclosure Action
unless the paragraph purports to assert a dis-
tinct cause of action. The court also found
that claims for damages, including attorney’s CASE: Hartmann v. Avatar Partners CT. LLC
fees, do not lend themselves to motions to COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven
strike. The court found the motion to strike DOC. NO.: CV-20-6102521
COURT OPINION BY: Wilson
was improper to address the paragraphs and DATE: January 05, 2021 • PAGES: 11
denied the motion. Plaintiffs executed a mortgage loan against
their residential property with defendant Avatar
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES • Partners. Payments were not made against the
REAL ESTATE mortgage, and in the underlying foreclosure ac-
tion defendant sought strict foreclosure on the
property, while plaintiffs sought counterclaims.
Res Judicata Does Not Apply in In the present action, the plaintiffs brought an
Ongoing Contractual Dispute action to assert a claim to quiet title and a dec-
laration that the mortgage was void and unen-
CASE: Pascarella v. Silver forceable. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
COURT: Stamford J.D. at Stamford
DOC. NO.: CV-16-6029529 under the prior pending action doctrine, argu-
COURT OPINION BY: Genuario ing that the present action and the foreclosure
DATE: January 07, 2021 • PAGES: 19 action were virtually alike. Plaintiffs contended
the actions were not alike because different
Plaintiffs (including plaintiff Pascarella) and parties are named, to which the defendant ar-
defendant entered into a 1997 Participation gued the other parties were not necessary. The
Agreement related to a specific property, court found that plaintiffs’ counterclaims in the
wherein each party would receive a right to a foreclosure action included a declaration from
50 percent cash distribution generated from the court that the mortgage was void, and that
the property. Under the agreement, plaintiffs the present action sought the same relief. The
had exclusive right to manage and operate court found there was sufficiency of the strict
the property, as well as determine when dis- identity of the parties in the foreclosure action
tributions were made. In 2006, a judgment for the application of the prior pending action,
was made in favor of the defendants for dam- and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
ages arising out of the Participation Agree-
ment between 2006 and 2008, and plaintiff
Pascarella brought the instant action seeking DISCOVERY • CIVIL PROCEDURE

a declaratory judgment in favor of the 2006 Court Orders Defendant to Produce a
action. Plaintiff Pascarella argued that, by
virtue of res judicata, the 2006 judgment also Revised Privilege Guide
resolved all subsequent claims by defendant
since 2008, and that the 2006 action liquidat- CASE: Yee v. Westchester Med. Group, P.C.
ed all claims defendant could make against COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
him. Defendant asserted a counterclaim de- DOC. NO.: CV-19-6041743
claratory judgment that the full force of the COURT OPINION BY: Povodator
DATE: January 06, 2021 • PAGES: 26
Participation Agreement remained in effect, In an ongoing dispute with plaintiff, defen-
and defendant had ongoing rights under the dant asserted that requested documents from
agreement to all distribution payments made discovery were subject to attorney-client privi-
after 2008. The court found that, because lege, work product privilege, and statutory pro-
plaintiff Pascarella had ongoing obligations tection of employee records under §31-128(f).
under the contract which led to a distribu- The plaintiff objected to such classification for
tion, defendants had a right to pursue such every requested document and, after an ini-
distributions and that res judicata did not liq- tial review, the court required the defendant to
uidate those rights. provide a more specific and detailed privilege

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune