Page 27 - CLT062220

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 22, 2020 ¦ 27

the habeas petition and the Commissioner ap- DEALS AND TRANSACTIONS
pealed. The court reversed. The court found
that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of Court Upheld Lower Court’s Decision
demonstrating that his attorney’s investigation or That Defendant Law Firm Was Not
decision to not call certain witnesses constituted Bound To The Confidentiality Provision
deficient performance. Petitioner did not present
testimony about his lawyer’s investigative efforts Of A Previous Settlement Agreement
or his lawyer’s trial strategy, and therefore failed
to overcome the strong presumption that his law- CASE: Pursuit Partners, LLC v. Reed Smith, LLP
yer conducted an objectively reasonable investi- COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
gation. The court also found that even though DOC. NO.: AC 41551
his attorney did not request the third-party cul- COURT OPINION BY: Moll
pability jury instruction, she did argue it to the DATE: June 09, 2020 • PAGES: 17
jury and the court reasoned that there were many
reasons why she decided to present the defense in Plaintiffs — Pursuit Investment Management, Pur-
that way. Therefore, the court held that the ha- suit Opportunity Fund I and Pursuit Capital Man-
beas court erred and reversed the judgment. agement Fund I— and Alpha Beta Capital Partners
had previously executed a confidential settlement
agreement to resolve certain litigation proceed-
ings. Afterwards, Alpha Beta brought a related ac-
CRIMINAL APPEALS • SOCIAL MEDIA tion seeking damages for the alleged failure of the
defendants, which are the plaintiffs in this case, to
Court Rejected Appeal From Criminal provide Alpha Beta with its proportionate share of
Defendant Who Had Been Convicted the previous litigation proceeds. The lower court
found that the delayed payment to Alpha Beta con-
Of Posting Threatening Statements On stituted a material breach of the settlement agree-
Facebook ment and relieved Alpha Beta of its confidentiality
obligations. The Pursuit plaintiffs in this case then
sued the defendant, a law firm, alleging that the de-
CASE: State of Connecticut v. Taupier fendants breached the confidentiality agreement of
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42115 the previous settlement agreement, to which the de-
COURT OPINION BY: Prescott fendant was a signatory. The trial court granted the
DATE: June 09, 2020 • PAGES: 22 defendant’s motion for summary judgment, con-
Defendant posted several threatening posts on cluding that in the previous lawsuit the defendants
Facebook where he directed threatening state- were determined to be culpable and once the court
ments towards Superior Court judges and court ruled in favor of Alpha Beta, it found that the de-
employees. He was convicted of five counts of fendant’s obligation pursuant to the confidentiality
threatenig in the second degree. The trial court provisions of the settlement agreement was excused.
denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, con- The plaintiffs appealed and the court affirmed.
cluding that the jury could contextually find that Plaintiffs argued that the trial court improperly con-
the defendant’s statements were not protected cluded that the defendant law firm was bound by the
by the First Amendment. Defendant appealed confidentiality agreement. The court disagreed. It
and the court affirmed. The court agreed with reasoned that the agreement was a contract entered
the lower court that many of the defendant’s into by the plaintiffs and Alpha Beta, and the defen-
statements were advocacy directed at inciting dant was not a named party to the agreement.

or producing imminent lawless action and were
therefore not protected free speech. The court PRODUCTS LIABILITY • CIVIL PROCEDURE
reasoned that a person of reasonable caution
would conclude at least five of his statements Court Upheld Lower Court’s Decision
were highly likely to be perceived by a reasonable That A Defendant Did Not Properly
person as serious threats of physical harm; the Implead A Third-Party Defendant
defendant’s history of contentious relationships
with judges and judicial employees, his previous
convictions for similar threats, and the reactions CASE: Ahrens v. Hartford Florists’ Supply Inc.
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
to the defendant’s statements by court employees DOC. NO.: AC 42154
supported this conclusion. The court affirmed COURT OPINION BY: DiPentima
the lower court’s judgment. DATE: June 09, 2020 • PAGES: 12

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune