Page 31 - CLT061520

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 15, 2020 ¦ 31

England Mercantile Group (NEMG), specializ- Decedent was under the care and treatment
ing in luxury products made of imported silk and of defendants with ongoing abdominal pain,
bamboo viscose. They started NEMG in 2007 in bloating, nausea and vomiting. Defendant
the basement of their home. In 2008, they hired Wazaz recommended a surgical procedure,
Kyle Hayes to assist them. In 2012, they hired during which decedent went into cardiopulmo-
Craig Barnell. Both Hayes and Barnell had been nary arrest, resulting in anoxic brain encepha-
unemployed. Neither had any experience in cloth- lopathy. She was left in a vegetative state and
ing, imports, or online commerce. By early 2013, she died a month later. Plaintiff, who was ap-
however, they had conceived the idea of opening pointed administrator of estate of decedent,
a competing clothing business. They used compa- brought wrongful death and medical malprac-
ny computers to access and download the com- tice actions against defendants. The defen-
pany’s vendor and supplier information, along dants brought a motion to dismiss the medi-
with the company’s sales, inventory, and pricing cal malpractice claims on statute of limitations
information. By the fall of 2013, they were able grounds, and the court denied the motion on
to launch a competing online retailer, which they the grounds that a motion to dismiss was not
named Fishers Finery. Fishers’ product line and the proper procedural mechanism to raise a
packaging were virtually indistinguishable from statute of limitations defense.
those of NEMG. and, because they were able to
take advantage of NEMG’s confidential business
information, including its sales history, they were CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES

able to focus on those products that they knew Plaintiff Entitled to Benefit of Its
would sell well, allowing them to grow rapidly,
while NEMG’s sales suffered a marked decrease. Bargain
NEMG sued Fishers, Hayes, Barnell, and others
for CUTPA violation and other claims. The case CASE: Med. Device Solutions, LLC v. Aferzon
was tried to a jury, which rendered judgment in COURT: Hartford J.D. Complex Litigation
favor of plaintiff on its CUTPA claim, but de- DOC. NO.: CV18-6103682
clined to award damages. Plaintiff moved for COURT OPINION BY: Moukawsher
awards of attorney fees, costs, and punitive dam- DATE: April 22, 2020 • PAGES: 47
ages under CUTPA. Defendants opposed, argu-
ing that the jury’s failure to award even punitive The court rendered judgment in favor of plain-
damages precluded awards of fees, costs, and pu- tiff on its breach of contract claim, finding that
nitive damages. The court disagreed, finding that defendant failed to honor the parties’ agree-
the evidence at trial supported the jury’s verdict. ment to share the profits from a device that de-
Although defendants’ conduct was plainly outra- fendant invented, but which plaintiff helped to
geous, the Saeeds were unable to quantify their design and build. Defendant, a surgeon, devel-
monetary damages, testifying that they had lost oped an idea for a small, cage-like device that
both existing and potential customers, but that it could be used to fuse the two ends of a frac-
was impossible to quantify their lost sales. In light tured vertebra. He made some rough drawings
of defendants’ deliberately malicious conduct, and obtained a preliminary patent. He then
the court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to entered into an agreement with plaintiff to
fees, costs, and punitive damages, in amounts to develop drawings and a prototype. Defendant
be determined. drafted an agreement in which he promised to
give plaintiff “50% of the total compensation
resulting from the sale and/or licensing” of
the device. Plaintiff provided plaintiff with the
CIVIL PROCEDURE • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE drawings and prototype contemplated in their

Court Finds Motion To Dismiss agreement. Defendant used the drawings and
prototype to obtain a patent. He then licensed
the rights to the device to a manufacturer, in
Improper Procedure To Raise Statute exchange for over $3 million in cash and stock.
Of Limitations Defense Plaintiff received nothing. Plaintiff sued defen-
dant for breach of contract. At trial, defendant
CASE: Nieves v. Wazaz dismissed their written agreement as simply
COURT: New Haven J.D. at New Haven an “agreement to agree” on terms at some fu-
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6094518 ture date. Defendant also dismissed the value
COURT OPINION BY: Wilson
DATE: May 15, 2020 • PAGES: 6 of plaintiff ’s contributions to the patented

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune