Page 34 - CLT061421

34 ■ JUNE 14, 2021 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
members. She also sued Bhadra Seva, a fam- In 2019, plaintiff was assigned all rights and
ily-founded medical marijuana business. She interest in contractual rights due and owing
claimed that she is a 25% owner of the business to Villa. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging
and that defendants have acted to deprive her breach of contract against defendant in state
of her rightful interest in the company. Defen- court. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
dant Sharad Patel filed a counterclaim. The first for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court
count asserted a cause of action for intentional denied defendant’s motion. Plaintiff argued
interference with contractual relations and the that several General Statutes provide a basis
second count alleged a breach of contract. The for personal jurisdiction under the long arm
court granted plaintiff’s motion to strike as to statute. Plaintiff argued that the performance
the intentional interference count and denied of its contractual obligations to sell, package,
the motion as to the breach of contract count. and ship its products, as well as its service work
Plaintiff argued that the intentional interfer- using certain software, took place in Connecti-
ence count should be stricken because it alleged cut. The court found that because Villa per-
harm to an LLC, not to Sharad. She claimed formed the most substantial part of the con-
that the transaction with which she allegedly in- tractual obligations in Connecticut, that was
terfered was a sale of Bhadra Seva’s assets and sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over
that the harm alleged consisted of increased defendant. The court distinguished case law
costs incurred by Bhadra Seva in the sale of cited by defendant, reasoning that plaintiff not
its assets. The court found that this count in only performed administrative actions but ac-
the counterclaim was premature. It reasoned tually shipped the physical goods to defendant
that Sharad has standing to bring a tortious from its Connecticut inventory. The court then
interference claim based on plaintiff’s alleged found that the exercise of jurisdiction satisfied
interference with the contract to sell his inter- the due process requirements. It stated that de-
est in Bhadra Seva, but only if plaintiff’s claims fendant made sufficient minimum contacts and
in this lawsuit are found in Sharad’s favor. The it was reasonable to require defendant to de-
court therefore granted plaintiff’s motion to fend suit in that forum.
strike this count. Plaintiff also moved to strike
the breach of contract count, arguing that it CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
did not arise out of a transaction that is the
subject of her complaint and because it failed Court Granted Defendants’ Motion
to allege an essential element. The court dis-
agreed, finding that the claim states a cause of for Summary Judgment in Part in Free
action for breach of contract despite the ab- Speech Lawsuit
sence of an allegation that a loan was due to be
paid on a particular date prior to the filing of CASE: Weinstein v. Univ. of Connecticut
the counterclaim. COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
DOC. NO.: CV-11-6027112
COURT OPINION BY: Noble
CIVIL PROCEDURE • DATE: May 18, 2021 • PAGES: 43
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES Plaintiff was employed at defendant University
of Connecticut from Jan. 2007 to Aug. 2011. In
Court Found That Personal Jurisdiction 2010, he was employed as the Director of the
Over Foreign Defendant was Proper Innovation Accelerator and an Assistant Pro-
fessor in Residence. Neither position led to ten-
CASE: VSM US, LLC v. Dent-X Canada ure. In May 2010, plaintiff voiced his concerns
COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven regarding Institutional Review Board Approv-
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6098728 als for summer interns and his concern about
COURT OPINION BY: Wilson defendant Dean Earley’s appointment of Ear-
DATE: May 19, 2021 • PAGES: 20 ley’s wife as a director. In July 2010, Dean Ear-
In 2015, non-party Villa Radiology Systems ley informed plaintiff of the decision not to ap-
entered into an agreement with defendant to point plaintiff to a new term as Director of the
purchase products for $1,260,000. Villa ten- IA and in May 2011, plaintiff learned that he
dered the products to defendant in Canada would not be renewed to the position of APR.
and defendant accepted them, but failed to pay Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging that Dean
$340,000. Villa sued defendant in federal court. Earley failed to reappoint him to his positions

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune