Page 33 - CLT062821

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS JUNE 28, 2021 ■ 33
that after complainant made his March 17 re- children, and therefore dismissed her claim on
quest, respondents provided him with all the the grounds of qualified immunity. The court
records pertaining to the incident, including declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
the original incident report, supplemental in- over plaintiffs’ state law claims.
cident reports, a copy of their retention sched-
ule for dispatch records, and other documents. CONTRACTS
The Commission noted that respondents were
not using body cameras at the time of the in- Defendant Breached Contract with
cident and any other pertinent video had been
destroyed per procedure given the lapse of Plaintiff After Failing to Pay
time. Therefore, the Commission found that CASE: Clayton Serv., LLC v. Sun West Mortgage Co., Inc.
respondents did not violate the FOI Act and COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
dismissed the complaint. DOC. NO.: 3:17-cv-00172
COURT OPINION BY: Dooley
U.S. DISTRICT COURT DATE: June 10, 2021 • PAGES: 31
Plaintiff was to perform Post-Close Quality
Control services for defendant, who is a residen-
tial and commercial mortgage lender. Plaintiff
CIVIL PROCEDURE • FAMILY LAW claimed that it performed its obligations under
the contract but that defendant refused to make
Court Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Claims payments as required. It sued defendant for
Against a State Social Worker for Lack breach of contract and violation of the cove-
Of Jurisdiction nant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant
claimed plaintiff did not perform its obligations
CASE: Robertstad v. Henry under the contract. After a trial to the court, the
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut court found in favor for plaintiff on Count One,
DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-1513 breach of contract, and for defendant on Count
COURT OPINION BY: Arterton Three, covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
DATE: June 14, 2021 • PAGES: 10 The court first discussed the breach of contract
Defendant is a social worker employed by the claim. The parties did not dispute the valid-
state. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant improp- ity of the contract, nor did they dispute that
erly removed plaintiff Robertstad’s minor chil- defendant did not make any payment under
dren and plaintiff Lester’s grandchildren from that contract. Defendant claimed that the
Lester’s home. Plaintiff Robertstad had been services and monthly reports generated were
arrested and charged with two counts of risk inadequate for its purposes, and that plaintiff
of injury to the minor children. At the time of did not perform the process pursuant to agen-
the removal, plaintiff Lester was the licensed cy guidelines. Therefore, defendant argued,
foster parent. Plaintiffs claimed that this re- it was justified in withholding payment. The
moval amounted to intentional infliction of court rejected that argument. It stated that
emotional distress and denial of due process. there was nothing in the contract requiring

Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of sub- plaintiff to perform its duties in accordance
ject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a with agency guidelines. If defendant wanted
claim. The court granted defendant’s motion. the agency guidelines to govern the scope and
The court first held that plaintiff Robertstad nature of plaintiff’s obligations, it could have
lacked standing. He did not articulate in his included such a requirement. As to the breach
pleadings which constitutionally protected in- of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
terest he believed defendant invaded, and thus dealing claim, plaintiff alleged that defendant
what cognizable injury he suffered. Plaintiff breached by terminating the contract without
Robertstad’s inability to visit with his minor abiding by the terms, withholding payment on
children was not the result of defendant’s ac- all invoices while only disputing a small por-
tions, but the result of the protective orders tion of the invoices, and refusing to communi-
issued by the state court. The court simi- cate with plaintiff regarding the nonpayment
larly held that plaintiff Lester did not clear- of invoices. The court found that this claim
ly establish any constitutional right that she was duplicative of plaintiff’s contract claim,
might have to a relationship with the minor and therefore held that this claim failed.
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune