Page 34 - CLT070620

34 ¦ JULY 6, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

the Act is an allocation of state revenue and U.S. DISTRICT COURT
is not a tax. Therefore, the taxpayer standing
doctrine barred plaintiffs’ claim.

EDUCATION LAW CIVIL PROCEDURE • BUSINESS TORTS

Court Reversed In Part The Lower Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Abuse
Court’s Award Of Compensatory Of Process Claim Where Underlying
Award To Plaintiff Suing Under IDEA Cases Still Pending

CASE: Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. Of Educ. CASE: Pursuit Opportunity Fund I Master Ltd. v. Claridge
Assoc., LLC
COURT: U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 19-354
COURT OPINION BY: Wesley DOC. NO.: 3:19-CV-01839
COURT OPINION BY: Dooley
DATE: June 18, 2020 • PAGES: 38 DATE: June 18, 2020 • PAGES: 9
Plaintiff sued defendant under the Individuals Defendants have two still-pending lawsuits
with Disabilities Education Act. She alleged against various affiliates of the plaintiffs’ hedge
that defendant denied her son John a free ap- fund services. Plaintiff brought the present ac-
propriate public education and denied the tion against defendants alleging abuse of pro-
“stay put” provision of IDEA by refusing to cess, tortious interference with business expecta-
pay for services required by John’s individual tions, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair
education plan. The court previously held that Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff argued the defen-
defendant had provided John with a sufficient dants knew the underlying suits lacked probable
IEP and FAPE, but that defendant had vio- cause, legal and factual bases, and were intend-
lated the IDEA’s “stay put” provision.” The ed to gain leverage. Defendants moved to dis-
District Court then awarded plaintiff reim- miss, arguing the claims are premature pending
bursement for her out-of-pocket expenses re- the underlying litigation. The court agreed, and
lating to services covered by John’s stay-put granted the motion to dismiss.

IEP, as well as compensatory funds that were CIVIL PROCEDURE • LABOR LAW
to be placed in an escrow account with certain
restrictions. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that
she should also be reimbursed for tuition pay- Court Refuses To Find Plaintiff
ments and other such expenses. The court af- Incompetent Without Medical Evidence
firmed in part and reversed in part. The court Of Competency
first addressed plaintiff ’s arguments about
the compensatory award. It found that giving CASE: Chapman v. Ring’s End, Inc.
final decision-making authority to the escrow COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
agent violates the IDEA, because IDEA re- DOC. NO.: 3:17-cv-01084
quires that upon obtaining final relief, plain- COURT OPINION BY: Bolden
tiff ’s award cannot be modified by anyone ab- DATE: June 23, 2020 • PAGES: 16
sent a new hearing. The court also agreed that
plaintiff should not have to pay for half the Plaintiff was an employee of defendant for 25
administrative fee on the escrow account be- years as a forklift operator. In January 2016
cause she should not have to pay for a portion plaintiff sustained a work injury to his shoul-
of the cost of managing a fund for educational der and defendant allegedly placed plaintiff
services the defendant should have provided. on FMLA leave. In July 2016 plaintiff had a
The court denied plaintiff ’s argument that she stroke; plaintiff ’s wife allegedly informed de-
should have not have been denied reimburse- fendant. Defendant allegedly notified plain-
ment for school tuition and other services not tiff about the amount of time remaining in
his FMLA entitlement. Plaintiff alleged that
he was never asked to complete an FMLA ap-
covered by the stay-put IEP, finding that the plication or instructions on the FMLA pro-
law of the case doctrine barred her arguments. cess. In October 2016, plaintiff ’s FMLA leave
Therefore, the court affirmed in part and re- expired and plaintiff was terminated. Plain-
versed in part. tiff brought a claim against defendant for

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune