Page 34 - CLT081020

34 ¦ AUGUST 10, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and vio- Plaintiff was hired by defendant to consult on
lation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices financial and economic services in Saudi Ara-
Act. Defendant moved to dismiss the CUTPA bia. Plaintiff contended that defendant only
complaints corresponding to the demand of a con- paid one half of the net fees, and sought full
structive trust. Defendant argued that the alleged payment of the fees owed, while defendant
scheme which comprised the root of the claims did argued its after-tax share was already paid.
not relate to entrepreneurial aspects of the practice Plaintiff brought several complaints, includ-
of law, as required for a CUTPA violation. The ing breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
court agreed, finding that nothing in the complaint fraudulent inducement, and breach of the
related to billing or services related to the entrepre- covenant of good faith and fair dealing. De-
neurial aspects of legal practice, and granted the fendant brought a motion to compel discovery
motion to dismiss the CUTPA complaint. as the parties could not meet amicably to dis-

cuss and resolve the exchange of information.
DISCOVERY • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION The court granted several of defendant’s mo-
tions to compel discovery and denied others
Court Ruled on Discovery Motions in where the court determined that plaintiff had
Employment Discrimination Case already responded.

CASE: Cafagno v. Party City Corp. EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-00442
COURT OPINION BY: Meyer Court Grants Motion For Summary
DATE: July 29, 2020 • PAGES: 4 Judgment in Age Discrimination
Plaintiff sued defendant for employment discrimi-
nation. The court previously conducted a hearing Claim

with the attorneys regarding a discovery dispute, CASE: Lavorgna v. Hamden Shoreline Oral & Maxillofacial
and this ruling detailed the court’s ruling without Surgery Assoc., P.C.
delving into the underlying facts of the case. It first COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
addressed the plaintiff’s request to serve witness Jim DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-00007
Viola with a subpoena for meeting notes. An em- COURT OPINION BY: Bryant
ployee took notes during a meeting with plaintiff, DATE: July 29, 2020 • PAGES: 28
and plaintiff alleged that another employee gave
Viola these meeting notes. However, the court noted Plaintiff worked as a surgical dental assistant
that nothing in the employee’s deposition suggested for defendant’s practice. She was 56 years old
that the employee did in fact give these notes to and had a slight hearing impairment. After
Viola. Therefore, the court denied the request. The about 10 years of employment plaintiff, who
court also denied plaintiff’s motion for spoliation did not have a supervisory role, began aggres-
of evidence sanctions regarding those same notes. sively directing new hires about their job re-
The court ordered plaintiff to comply with defen- sponsibilities and having verbal altercations
dants’ requests regarding documents concerning with coworkers. New hires frequently com-
claims for unemployment and disability benefits. plained about plaintiff ’s disposition and at-
titude. Plaintiff received written warnings
about her interactions with coworkers and
was eventually terminated. Plaintiff filed an
DISCOVERY • FEE DISPUTES employment discrimination action against

Court Grants Motions to Compel defendant claiming violations of the Age Dis-
crimination Act and the Americans with Dis-
abilities Act, and defendant moved for sum-
Discovery Where Parties Could Not mary judgment. The court found plaintiff
Confer To Resolve did not meet the employment qualification
of getting along with coworkers and failed
CASE: Dr. Al Malik Office for Fin. & Econ. Consultancy v. to adduce evidence of age-related discrimi-
Horseneck Capital Advisors, LLC nation, and as such found plaintiff could not
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
DOC. NO.: 3:19-CV-01417 The court granted the defendant’s motion for
COURT OPINION BY: Garfinkel
DATE: July 27, 2020 • PAGES: 14 summary judgment.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune