Page 30 - CLT061520
P. 30
30 ¦ JUNE 15, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
court erroneously granted defendant’s motion for Plaintiff is a real estate development company
contempt. It reasoned that the basis on which the and defendants are property owner Ahuja and
court found the plaintiff in contempt was not one Ahuja Holdings, a real estate holding company.
of the bases that defendant alleged in his motion Plaintiff sued for vexatious litigation in connec-
for contempt. Therefore, the court reversed in part. tion with its plans to construct a mixed-use de-
velopment project. Plaintiff claimed that the de-
PERSONAL INJURY fendants tried to impede its development project
through Ahuja’s opposition to three of the plain-
tiff’s zoning applications. The trial court granted
Court Found For Defendant In Personal the defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
Injury Case, Holding There Was No holding that Ahuja’s zoning appeals were pro-
Evidence Of Subjective Intent To Injure tected activity from the Noerr-Pennington doc-
trine, which protects individuals from liability
CASE: Hassiem v. O & G Indus., Inc. for petitioning a government entity for redress in
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court order to advocate their causes. Plaintiff appealed
DOC. NO.: AC 41794 and the court affirmed. Plaintiff argued on ap-
COURT OPINION BY: Lavine peal that the trial court improperly concluded
DATE: June 02, 2020 • PAGES: 18 that Ahuja’s appeals were not objectively base-
less and that the sham exception to the doctrine
Plaintiff used to work for defendant, and then sued was not applicable. The sham exception does not
when he sustained injuries at work while cleaning protect activity brought with no reasonable ex-
equipment. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant pectation of obtaining a favorable ruling. The
intentionally created a dangerous condition that court disagreed with the plaintiff. It held that
it knew with substantial certainty would result in the trial court correctly determined that Ahuja’s
injury to the plaintiff. The trial court granted de- legal actions in contesting various to the plain-
fendant’s motion for summary judgment and the tiff’s zoning application did not qualify for the
plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed. The court sham exception; Ahuja’s claims were not objec-
held that plaintiff failed to show that there was a tively baseless just because they failed, and a rea-
genuine issue of material fact as to whether defen- sonable litigant in Ahuja’s position could have
dant had the subjective intent to create a dangerous concluded that the plaintiff’s failure to follow the
situation while knowing there was a substantial cer- zoning regulations resulted in an incomplete ap-
tainty plaintiff would be injured. The court noted plication. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower
that there was no evidence that defendant was de- court’s judgment.
liberately deceptive in failing to install the lockout
device and informed its employees of the dangers
posed by powerful machines that could accidentally
be turned on. The defendant also informed its em- SUPERIOR COURT
ployees that it intended to install the lockout devic-
es. The court reasoned that although the defendant
failed to install the lockout device quickly, a subjec-
tive or deceptive intent to injure employees could BUSINESS TORTS
not be inferred from that failure. Therefore, the Defendants’ Outrageous Conduct
court affirmed the lower court’s judgment granting
the defendant summary judgment. Warranted Award of Punitive Damages
REAL ESTATE CASE: New England Mercantile Group, LLC v. Fishers
Finery, LLC
Court Found That Defendant’s Appeals COURT: Hartford J.D. Complex Litigation Docket
Did Not Qualify For The Sham Exception DOC. NO.: CV14-6069683
Under The Noerr-Pennington Doctrine COURT OPINION BY: Budzik
DATE: May 22, 2020 • PAGES: 15
CASE: Procurement, LLC v. Ahuja et. al.
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court The court granted plaintiff’s motion for rea-
DOC. NO.: AC 41680 sonable attorney fees, costs, and punitive dam-
COURT OPINION BY: Keller ages, finding that defendants acted outrageously,
DATE: June 02, 2020 • PAGES: 26 with bad intent, and with reckless indifference
to plaintiff’s interests. Azam and Aysha Saeed
founded an online retail clothing company, New
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
