Page 37 - CLT032221

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS MARCH 22, 2021 ¦ 37

the premises. Such duties should have been in- similarly argued that it was not foreseeable that
cluded in the contract. Thus, the fall did not defendant’s conduct would reasonably lead
arise out of third-party defendant’s obligation plaintiff to suffer emotional distress beyond
to provide education, and so the indemnifica- what typically accompanies litigation.
tion clause did not apply.

CONTRACTS • CIVIL PROCEDURE CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES •
DAMAGES • TRADE SECRETS

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Abuse of Court Awards Attorney Fees but
Process Claim Denied Declines to Award Punitive Damages

CASE: Lezak v. Apex Int’l Educ. Partners and Costs under CUTPA
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6131252 CASE: LBI, Inc. v. Charles River Analytics, Inc.
COURT: New London J.D. at New London
COURT OPINION BY: Noble DOC. NO.: CV-12-6018984
DATE: February 24, 2021 • PAGES: 28
Plaintiff contracted with defendant to serve as COURT OPINION BY: Knox
a host for a foreign student attending a local DATE: February 22, 2021 • PAGES: 26
school. When plaintiff ’s contractual duties ex-
pired, defendant sent a menacing letter to abide Plaintiff had a contract with the Navy to de-
velop underwater vessels for research, and de-
fendant had a contract with the Navy for the
by the contract. Plaintiff alleges that the pur- same vessels to provide the computer software.
pose of the letter was to terrorize her and not to
collect money. Plaintiff alleged tortious conduct Eventually, plaintiff ’s contract was terminated,
by defendant when collecting a debt: abuse of defendant’s contract was expanded to cover de-
process, intentional infliction of emotional dis- velopment, and two employees of plaintiff left
tress, and negligent infliction of emotional dis- to join employment with defendant. Plaintiff
tress. Defendant moved to strike all counts of the previously brought several counts against the
complaint. As to the motion to strike the abuse former employees, including breach of con-
of process count, defendant argued that service tract, duty of loyalty, and misappropriation
of complaint does not constitute legal process. of trade secrets. After ongoing court orders,
The court held that, viewed in light most favor- plaintiff ’s motion to cite in defendant was
able to plaintiff, the fact that defendant had a granted and plaintiff added new counts of tor-
state marshal serve plaintiff with summons and tious interference with business relations, civil
complaint constituted a legal process sufficient conspiracy, and violations of the Connecticut
for an abuse of process claim. Defendant also Unfair Trade Practices Act. Claims against
argued that the complaint did not allege use of plaintiff ’s former employees were dismissed as
a legal process primarily to accomplish a pur- to one employee and the other employee was
pose for which it is not designed. The court held granted summary judgment. A jury returned
that the primary purpose of defendant’s action a verdict in favor of plaintiff, awarding dam-
was designed to terrorize plaintiff, a purpose ages, and plaintiff moved for attorney fees,
for which it was not designed. Defendant also punitive damages or disgorgement of prof-
asserted that plaintiff alleged a claim sound- its, and costs under CUTPA. As to attorney
ing in vexatious litigation and had an unripe fees, the court eliminated hours worked by the
claim. Because the court found that plaintiff ’s plaintiff ’s counsel from prior to and unrelated
complaint sufficiently alleged abuse of process, to the CUTPA matters, found the rates to be
they did not consider it. The court sided with reasonable, found no Johnson factor adjust-
defendant on the other counts. With regards to ment was warranted, and awarded attorney
intentional infliction of emotional distress, de- fees by their discretion. The court found no
fendant claimed that their conduct was not ex- violation of a non-disclosure agreement and
treme and outrageous, and that plaintiff ’s emo- did not find any inducement from the defen-
tional distress was not severe. While the court dant to “take” plaintiff ’s information or act
was sympathetic with plaintiff ’s anxiety, it wrote maliciously toward plaintiff, and as such de-
that it could not characterize defendant’s con- clined to award punitive damages. The court
duct as extreme and outrageous. Regarding neg- found non-taxable costs were not recoverable
ligent infliction of emotional distress, the court by plaintiff under CUTPA.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune