Page 37 - CLT032320

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS MARCH 23, 2020 ¦ 37

that plaintiff should have known the claim was Plaintiff, a citizen of Connecticut, worked for
meritless because there was no legal basis for a temporary employment agency at a ware-
arguing the acronym use violated the FDCPA. house in Connecticut owned by defendant
Defendant also argued the numerous settlement Dollar Tree Distribution. He was injured
offers and the unreasonably multiplied proceed- when he slipped and fell in the warehouse,
ings suggested the goal of the claim was harass- and brought a Connecticut state court neg-
ment. The court found the claim was meritless ligence claim naming Dollar Tree as the sole
and brought for improper purposes, and that defendant. Dollar Tree, a citizen of Virginia,
plaintiff knew it was meritless. The court also removed the action to federal court on the
found plaintiff ’s and plaintiff ’s counsel’s be- basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff then
havior warranted sanctions, such as refusing to filed an amended complaint naming individ-
allow ERC’s counsel to attend a settlement con- ual putative defendants who were Connecti-
ference via teleconference. The court awarded cut citizens, and sought to remand the case
attorneys’ fees of nearly $42,000. back to Connecticut arguing there was no
longer complete diversity. Dollar Tree argued
fraudulent joinder to oppose the remand,
CIVIL PROCEDURE however the court found Dollar Tree did not

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss in show plaintiff harbored deception or fraud.
Favor of Sanctions for Willful Non- The court granted the motion and remanded
to state court.

Compliance of Discovery Request CONSUMER PROTECTION

CASE: Armstrong v. Martocchio
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:18 CV 580 Court Denies Motion to Compel
COURT OPINION BY: Spector Arbitration Where Plaintiff Had
DATE: March 09, 2020 • PAGES: 8 Insufficient Notice of Arbitration

Plaintiff was a truck driver arrested by defen-
dant police officer. During the course of arrest,
plaintiff alleged her arm and wrist were twist- CASE: Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund
Trust Ltd.
ed and sprained, requiring medical treatment. COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
Her charges were nolled, and plaintiff brought DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-00592
claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution COURT OPINION BY: Meyer
and excessive or unreasonable force. The mag- DATE: March 05, 2020 • PAGES: 14
istrate judge ordered a settlement conference, Plaintiff opted into a telemarketing promotion
but it was cancelled after both parties indicat- held by Subway to allow her to receive text
ed it would be unproductive. Defense counsel message offers. Plaintiff was directed to the
then reported that plaintiff had not completed Subway website to receive “help” and agreed
their discovery request, and after missing the to the “terms and conditions” on the website,
deadline defendant filed a motion to dismiss. but never fully checked a box agreeing to the
The court denied the motion to dismiss, but terms. Plaintiff then attempted to opt out of
precluded the plaintiff from producing further the text promotion, but due to a malfunction
discovery and awarded reasonable expenses and in the system kept receiving texts from Subway.
attorney fees to defendant. The court found Plaintiff brought a claim alleging violations of
that willful non-compliance with the discovery the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and
order favored dismissal, but that a sanction less Subway moved to compel arbitration per the
than dismissal was appropriate. terms and conditions from the website. Plain-
tiff argued she did not agree to arbitration,
Court Grants Motion to Remand to and the court agreed, finding that the “reason-
State Court ably conspicuous notice” requirement was not
met. The court found a prudent consumer in
plaintiff ’s shoes would not known about the
CASE: Reynolds v. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc. arbitration clause, as they would have to copy
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut and paste the URL from the advertisement
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-01137 to find the arbitration clause on the website.
COURT OPINION BY: Meyer The court noted that the terms were listed as
DATE: March 09, 2020 • PAGES: 7

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune