Page 28 - CLT062121
P. 28

28  ■  JUNE 21, 2021                 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
        intended for the information to be maintained as  Plaintiff and defendant co-owned a company; a
        confidential  information  was  supported  by  the  dispute arose when defendant discovered plain-
        evidence.  There was testimony at the commission  tiff had misappropriated funds. Defendant as-
        hearing indicating that nondisclosure agreements  sumed sole management, did not distribute profit
        were made, that bidders relied on the Depart- to plaintiff, and prevented plaintiff from inspect-
        ment’s guarantee of confidentiality, and that cer- ing financial records of the company. There was
        tain bidders even pursued protective orders with  a bench trial, the trial judgment was appealed,
        respect to the information.                        and the appellate court affirmed the trial decision
                                                           except for two issues and remanded to the trial
        SUPERIOR COURT                                     court. The first issue was that plaintiff moved
                                                           for  dissolution  of  the  company  on  the  ground
                                                           of oppression. The second issue was whether the
                                                           three-year statute of limitations should apply to
        ADMINISTRATIVE LAW                                 defendant’s counterclaim to breach of fiduciary
                                                           duty. The court found that plaintiff had been de-
        Police Officer Cannot Appeal                       prived of information that he had a right to, such
        Administrative Decision Because                    as financial and tax records, and participation in
                                                           profit distribution. While the court found that de-
        Hearing was Not a Contested Case                   fendant acted in an oppressive manner, the court
                                                           declined to dissolve the company, but instead in-
        CASE: Cullen v. Police Officer Standards & Training Council
        COURT: New Britain J.D.                            structed plaintiff to allow defendant to exercise
        DOC. NO.: CV-21-6063378                            the rights in the company that he has. Then, the
        COURT OPINION BY: Klau                             court found that the three-year statute of limi-
        DATE: May 21, 2021 • PAGES: 8                      tations would not affect the judgment rendered
        A police officer, who sought to appeal an admin-   by trial court because plaintiff failed to prove
        istrative decision, failed to show that the hearing   any misappropriation that occurred prior to the
        was a final decision.  In June 2020, the plaintiff,   three-year period.
        Justin Cullen, a certified police officer for the
        Manchester Police Department, resigned in lieu  CIVIL PROCEDURE • CIVIL APPEALS
        of being terminated following a sexual assault in-
        vestigation. In August 2020, the Plainville Police   Plaintiffs Fail to Get Motion Decided
        Department offered to hire plaintiff, but defen-
        dant, the Police Officer Standards and Training  While Related Motion in Appellate Stay
        Council, refused to issue plaintiff’s certification   CASE: Doe v. Bemer
        card to the Plainville Police Department. In Oc- COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
        tober 2020, the Council held a hearing, at which  DOC. NO.: CV-17-5032881
        plaintiff was present, where it argued that Con- COURT OPINION BY: Welch
        necticut statues forbade any Connecticut police  DATE: May 28, 2021 • PAGES: 9
        department  to  hire  plaintiff.  Plaintiff  appealed  A group of plaintiffs, who appealed a motion ver-
        to the court, arguing that the Council lacked the  dict while a similar motion was pending, failed to
        statutory authority to enforce the statute, but the  show that the similar motion should be decided
        court ruled that because the hearing was not a  during the automatic appellate stay period. In
        contested case, and thus not a final decision, it  2017, the plaintiffs filed suited against the defen-
        could not be appealed.                             dant, Bruce Demer, and, following a mediation,
                                                           were able to settle the matter and filed a motion
        BUSINESS TORTS •                                   to withdraw in November 2019. In April 2020,
        CORPORATE GOVERNANCE                               the  plaintiffs  filed  a  motion  for  judgment  and
                                                           motion to restore, asking that the case be placed
                                                           back on the docket, which the court rejected. In
        Motion to Dissolve Corporation Denied              January 2021, the plaintiffs filed three motions
        CASE: Manere v. Collins                            requesting the case be restored to the docket and
        COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport                to enforce the agreements. The court denied two
        DOC. NO.: CV-17-6064320                            of the motions, and stayed the final motion as the
        COURT OPINION BY: Cordani                          plaintiffs had appealed the decision. The plain-
        DATE: June 01, 2021 • PAGES: 15                    tiffs then filed a motion to terminate the appellate
        CONNECTICUT
           Law Tribune
   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33