Page 36 - CLT022420

36 ¦ FEBRUARY 24, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

charged under a multitude of subsections, however for violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
not where he was charged with multiple counts of Practices Act for being “double billed” on the
the same criminal subsection. The court affirmed the retainer, and plaintiff filed a motion to strike
trial court’s finding. the counterclaims. The court found the “double
billing” applied to a strategic decision to utilize
two attorneys, and the charged hourly rate was
REAL ESTATE • LANDLORD TENANT LAW not excessive or unreasonable. The court also

Court Upholds And Reverses Dismissal found insufficient evidence that the plaintiff
breached the fairness provision in their retain-
On Claim Brought By Property Owner er agreement. The court granted the motion to
Against City strike the counterclaims.

CASE: Berka v. City of Middletown BUSINESS TORTS
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 41902, AC 42138, AC 42139, AC 42206
COURT OPINION BY: Bear Motion to Strike CUTPA Claim Over
Unpaid Services Denied
DATE: February 11, 2020 • PAGES: 14
Plaintiff received blight ordinance citations and
citations for violations of the city health code for CASE: Tri-State LED, Inc. v. Pasquariello Elec. Corp.
property he owned and rented out to various ten- COURT: Stamford/Norwalk J.D. at Stamford
ants. Plaintiff brought separate claims against the DOC. NO.: CV-19-6039705-S
city for issuing the citations. The trial court dis- COURT OPINION BY: Genuario
missed each case for lack of subject matter juris- DATE: January 17, 2020 • PAGES: 5
diction, the plaintiff appealed, and the court issued
a single opinion for judicial expediency. The court Plaintiff alleged that it and defendant entered
into an oral agreement where defendant agreed
to bid for a job for LED lighting and services.
found, as to all the blight citations, that plaintiff Plaintiff alleges that defendant breached this
was required to pursue administrative remedy by agreement by failing to pay plaintiff for his ser-
appeal to a hearing officer, and affirmed the trial vices. Defendant moved to strike count three,
court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter juris- a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
diction. Plaintiff also brought an action challeng- Practices Act. The court denied the motion.
ing the validity of the blight ordinance, claiming Plaintiff alleged that when defendant entered
it violated certain constitutional guarantees. The into the oral agreement, the defendant never
trial court granted the motion to dismiss, however intended to pay for the services. The court
the court overturned this decision finding an ac- found that it was this fraudulent intent that
tual controversy existed between the parties. was important. It was more than a breach of
an agreement or even an intentional breach;
here, the allegation inferred an “insidious
SUPERIOR COURT scheme to obtain products and services with-

out paying.” This is tantamount to fraud. The
court found that the allegation of intent at the
ATTORNEY COMPENSATION time of the entry into the agreement was suffi-
ciently specific. Therefore, defendant’s motion
Court Finds Strategic Legal Decisions to strike is denied.
Insufficient to Constitute Violations of
CUTPA CIVIL PROCEDURE •
DAMAGES • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
CASE: Carey & Assoc., P.C. v. Jackel
COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport Satisfaction of Judgment Precluded
DOC. NO.: FBT CV-19-6085715-S Additur
COURT OPINION BY: Jacobs
DATE: January 30, 2020 • PAGES: 6
defen- CASE: Ashmore v. Hartford Hosp.
Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury
dant breached their contract by failing to pay DOC. NO.: CV13-6018555
outstanding legal fees as outlined by their retain- COURT OPINION BY: Roraback
er agreement. Defendant filed a counterclaim DATE: January 30, 2020 • PAGES: 9

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune