Page 32 - CLT032320

32 ¦ MARCH 23, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

appeal. The court found that it lacked subject BUSINESS TORTS • CORPORATE ENTITIES
matter jurisdiction over the appeal; the appeal
was not taken from a final judgment because Business Partner Liable for Breach of
the trial court left a substantive claim, the Partnership and Breach of Fiduciary
claim for attorney fees, unresolved. The trial
court was supposed to conduct a hearing on Duty for Seizing Control of Company
the merits to determine whether there was a
violation of the Common Interest Ownership CASE: Chugh v. Kalra
Act because only after such a violation could COURT: Hartford J.D., Complex Litigation Docket
attorney fees be awarded. Therefore, the court DOC. NO.: CV14-6047993
dismissed the appeal. COURT OPINION BY: Schuman
DATE: February 28, 2020 • PAGES: 38
The court granted in part and denied in part
SUPERIOR COURT plaintiffs’ and defendants’ post-judgment mo-
tions, finding that plaintiff ’s business partner
was liable for both breach of partnership and
breach of fiduciary duty for ousting plaintiff
ATTORNEY COMPENSATION • CONTRACTS from control of their company and seizing all

City’s Motion to Strike Denied in Case company assets. In 2006, plaintiff Rakshiit
Chugh and defendant Aashish Kalra formed
Involving an Oral Contract to Pay Legal Trikona Advisors, Ltd., as a vehicle to help for-
Fees for City’s Former Mayor eign investors invest in Indian real estate and
infrastructure. Each man held a 50 percent eq-
uity stake in Trikona through entities held by
CASE: Santos and Lalima, PC v. City of Hartford them. Chugh’s shares were held by Arc Capital
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV 19 6117346 LLC and Haida Investments, and Kalra’s shares
COURT OPINION BY: Taylor were owned by Asia Pacific Investments, Ltd. By
DATE: February 25, 2020 • PAGES: 9 2009, the relationship between Chugh and Talra
Defendant sought to strike plaintiff ’s com- had deteriorated to the point that they could no
plaint alleging a contract for attorneys’ fees longer work together. Trikona’s board of direc-
entered into by the City of Hartford’s former tors voted to remove Chugh as director, leaving
mayor Eddie Perez, where plaintiff would rep- Kalra in charge. Arc and Haida filed a petition
resent Perez and the city would pay his legal in the Cayman Islands to liquidate Trikona and
bills. The agreement revolved around the divide its assets between Chugh and Kalra. The
plaintiff having represented Perez in criminal Cayman court granted the petition in 2013.
proceedings based on an oral fee agreement. Chugh then sued Kalra in Connecticut, alleg-
Defendant’s motion to strike alleged that the ing, among other things, breach of partner-
agreement between Perez and plaintiff was not ship, breach of fiduciary duty, and libel. A jury
enforceable against the defendant, because it awarded Chugh over $9 million in lost profits
was entered into without actual or apparent and other compensatory damages, plus addi-
authority. The court denied the motion. The tional punitive damages. Kalra moved for judg-
court reasoned that plaintiff does not allege ment notwithstanding the verdict on Chugh’s
to have formed a contract with the town coun- breach of partnership, breach of fiduciary duty,
cil, but rather with the mayor. Because Perez and libel claims. The court denied the motion.
lacked direct authority to bind the town to a Kalra also moved to reduce the verdict and for
contract, plaintiff bore the burden of estab- remittitur. The court granted the motion in part,
lishing that the common council had delegat- finding that the jury’s awards of $2.2 million
ed its contracting authority to Perez, either and $2 million, respectively, for “compensatory
actually or apparently. In this case, the court damages other than profits” on Chugh’s claims
found that plaintiff clearly alleged actual au- of breach of partnership and breach of fiducia-
thority through language in the complaint, ry duty made little sense, in that the two counts
but did not make clear whether actual author- were essentially the same. The verdict also ex-
ity was expressly delegated or implied. There- ceeded Chugh’s evidence of damages. The court
fore, the court found the best course of action ordered a remittitur of $451,171.24. The court
was not dismissal but a request to revise to rejected Kalra’s challenge to the punitive dam-
clarify this issue. ages verdict and awarded Chugh $2,965,488.29

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune