Page 33 - CLT032320

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS MARCH 23, 2020 ¦ 33

in punitive damages, finding that the jury could the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
reasonably infer that Kalra’s conduct was wan- modify alimony awarded in a foreign judgment.
ton and willful. The court awarded a prejudg- The parties resided in the United Kingdom and
ment remedy of $11,915,317.05 against Kalra divorced in that country. The U.K. court incor-
in a second action, filed by Arc to enforce the porated into its final judgment a consent order
Cayman Islands judgment, the court entered that provided for the distribution of the par-
judgment in favor of Arc as to defendant Asia ties’ property as well as awarding alimony. The
Pacific, but against Arc as to defendant Kalra. court found that the Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act precluded the court from modify-
ing a spousal support order issued by a foreign
CIVIL PROCEDURE court that had continuing exclusive jurisdic-

Court Dismissed Claims Against Two tion over that order. The court reasoned that
Defendants in Tort Litigation for Lack neither party provided evidence that the U.K.
courts released or waived their exclusive juris-
diction. Therefore, the court granted plaintiff ’s
of Personal Jurisdiction motion to dismiss.

CASE: Bates v. Triumph Engine Control Sys, LLC
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV 196116131 EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

COURT OPINION BY: Moukawsher Alleged Failure to Mitigate Damages
DATE: March 04, 2020 • PAGES: 8
The estate administrators of two Virginia State
troopers claimed a faulty fuel pump caused Constitutes Valid Special Defense

the troopers’ helicopter to crash, causing their CASE: Belgada v. Hy’s Livery Service, Inc.
deaths. They sued defendant, Goodrich Corpo- COURT: New Haven J.D.
ration, the company that owns defendant Tri- DOC. NO.: CV19-6090694
umph Engine Control Systems, and Goodrich COURT OPINION BY: Ozalis
Pump and Engine Control System, the company DATE: February 26, 2020 • PAGES: 22
that sold the operation to Triumph Engine after
the accident. All companies except Triumph En- The court granted in part and denied in part
gine claimed the court did not have personal ju- plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ special
risdiction over them. The court found that there defenses, finding that defendants adequately
was no personal jurisdiction over Goodrich alleged a failure to mitigate damages, but that
Corporation and its owner Triumph Group, but their other challenged special defenses were
there was jurisdiction over Goodrich Pump and legally insufficient. Plaintiff employees filed a
Engine Control. The two defendants for which putative class action lawsuit against defendant
the court held that there was no personal juris- limousine service and its principals, alleging
diction have never been incorporated in Con- that defendants violated the Connecticut Mini-
necticut and have never had their principal place mum Wage Act by taking deductions from the
of business here. Therefore, the court dismissed drivers’ wages for “meal breaks” when neither
the claims against these two defendants. their meal break agreement nor state law per-
mitted such deductions, depriving the class of
thousands of hours of pay. Defendants filed an
answer and special defenses. Plaintiffs moved
CIVIL PROCEDURE • FAMILY LAW to strike 16 of defendants’ special defenses.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Granted; The court granted in plaintiffs’ motion to strike
as to all but three of the challenged special de-
fenses, finding, as to one, that it should have
Court Found U.K. Court Still Had been pleaded as a motion to strike, as to several
Exclusive Jurisdiction others, that they were merely denials of liabil-
ity, and, as to others, that they failed to allege
CASE: Olson v. Olson facts sufficient to support the claimed defenses.
COURT: Stamford/Norwalk at Stamford Among other things, defendants failed to plead
DOC. NO.: FA-10-4018452-S facts sufficient to support claims of laches, set-
COURT OPINION BY: McLaughlin
DATE: February 21, 2020 • PAGES: 6 off, accord and satisfaction, or waiver and es-
Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss defendant’s toppel. The court denied the motion to strike
motion to modify alimony on the grounds that only as to defendants’ claims of failure to

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune