Page 29 - CLT062220

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 22, 2020 ¦ 29

an order and decree issued by the Probate CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES
Court. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
on the grounds plaintiff ’s complaint was un-
timely. The court granted the motion. De- Court Issued Judgments In
fendant cited a general statute that states a Consolidated Cases
probate appeal must be filed within 45 days
of the Probate Court mailing its decree. In CASE: Farber v. Fore Group, Inc.
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
this case, the decree was mailed on November DOC. NO.: CV-18-6088970
2, 2018, making the 45-day cut off December COURT OPINION BY: Noble
17, 2018. Plaintiff did not file his complaint DATE: June 01, 2020 • PAGES: 6
until April 2019. The court rejected plaintiff ’s These are consolidated actions that the court
argument that defendant’s motion to dismiss received for trial. In the first case, plaintiff
was untimely, stating that a motion contest- asserted claims of breach of contract for re-
ing the court’s subject matter jurisdiction can payment of multiple oral loans to Dulos by
be raised at any time. Therefore, because the Farber, unjust enrichment, and piercing the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to con- corporate veil. The second case alleged a
sider plaintiff ’s appeal, the court granted de- claim of breach of contract for Dulos’ fail-
fendant’s motion to dismiss. ure to repay a promissory note in favor of
Farber. The court found, as to count one
Return Date Can Be Amended to in the first case, that defendant Fore Group
Accommodate Counsel’s Mistaken breached its agreement to repay money to
Filing of Wrong Complaint Farber, who subsequently suffered damages.
As to the second count of unjust enrichment
in the first case, the court found in favor of
CASE: Taylor v. Wal-Mart, Inc. defendant because it previously held that a
COURT: Waterbury J.D. at Waterbury remedy was available to the plaintiff by an
DOC. NO.: CV19-6050270 action on the contract. The court then found
COURT OPINION BY: Gordon in favor of plaintiff as to the third count,
DATE: May 22, 2020 • PAGES: 10 piercing the corporate veil. The court held
that under the identity test, plaintiff proved
The court denied defendants’ motion to dis- entitlement to pierce the corporate veil. As
miss and granted plaintiff ’s motion to amend to the second case, the court held that defen-
return date, finding that defendants would
not be prejudiced by amendment of the return
date. Plaintiff timely served defendants with a dant, the Estate of Dulos was liable under
summons and complaint with a return date of the terms of the promissory note.
September 10, 2019. On September 10, plain-
tiff ’s counsel e-filed the correct summons, CORPORATE ENTITIES
but inadvertently uploaded a complaint filed
years earlier on behalf of a different plaintiff
against the same defendants. On September Court Partially Granted Defendant’s
19, plaintiff moved to amend her complaint Motion For Summary Judgment In
by attaching and substituting the correct com- Lawsuit Involving A Failed Dental
plaint for the erroneous one. Plaintiff ’s mo- Practice
tion also sought permission to amend the re-
turn date. Defendants objected and moved to CASE: Ghorbani-Moghaddam v. Mohammadi
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The COURT: Hartford J.D. Complex Litigation Docket
court granted plaintiff ’s motion to amend and DOC. NO.: CV-18-6104677
denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding COURT OPINION BY: Moukawsher
that because service was properly, albeit im- DATE: April 22, 2020 • PAGES: 4
perfectly, returned to court on September 19, Plaintiff formerly worked for defendant,
the return date could properly be amended to who was a founder of a multi-office dental
October 8. Notably, defendants were timely practice called Columbia Dental. In 2016,
served with the correct summons and com- the parties created a company to establish
plaint, despite the subsequent filing error, and a dental practice. Plaintiff began practic-
made no claims of prejudice, lack of notice, or ing there in 2017 and defendant agreed to
inability to defend. provide the practice support services. Their

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune