Page 37 - CLT102620

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS OCTOBER 26, 2020 ¦ 37

Probate Court orders. Plaintiff filed a motion disengaged after plaintiff was fully handcuffed.
for summary judgment and defendant objected. Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of the events
The court granted plaintiff’s motion in part. The of the arrest and brought a civil rights action for
court granted plaintiff’s motion as to count one, excessive force against the troopers. After a bench
which alleged defendant failed to maintain the trial, the court found in favor of the defendants.
real property. Plaintiff presented evidence that The court credited the testimony of the respond-
defendant failed to pay taxes, failed to provide ing officers, noting that plaintiff’s state of mind
ordinary maintenance and to repair damage, and was severely compromised during the incident,
allowed the residence to become overburdened which might have altered his memory of events.
with garbage and debris. The court denied plain- The court also found, given the plaintiff’s state of
tiff’s motion as to the claim that defendants re- mind and the fact that he had weapons, it was not
mained on the property after the Housing Court unreasonable to deploy the dogs in the matter de-
ended defendant’s life tenancy. The court found scribed by defendants.
that procedurally, it was not able to grant plain-
tiff’s motion for summary judgment because EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
plaintiff’s previous motion for default for failure
to appear had already been granted.
Court Finds Employment Contract
At-Will, and Insufficient Evidence
U.S. DISTRICT COURT Presented on Breach

CASE: Scaife v. City of Meriden
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
CIVIL RIGHTS DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-00740

Court Finds in Favor of Responding COURT OPINION BY: Shea
DATE: October 08, 2020 • PAGES: 30
Officers for Use of Canines in Excessive Plaintiff worked as city manager for defendant
Force Complaint in accordance with an employment agreement,
wherein if the plaintiff were terminated without
CASE: Nuzzo v. Devine cause he would receive salary and benefits for an
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut additional 6 months, however the city charter al-
DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-00516 lows the city council to remove or suspend the
COURT OPINION BY: Meyer manager with or without pay by majority vote.
DATE: October 14, 2020 • PAGES: 10
While employed, plaintiff discovered a deceptive
Plaintiff had recently lost his job, and his mental financial scheme involving the Public Utilities De-
health began to suffer. In an incident which led partment. Meanwhile, several city council mem-
to this action, plaintiff threatened suicide, cut his bers began to raise concerns about plaintiff’s own
wrist, threatened to burn his house down, threat- management style, discord with city employees,
ened his wife, and took a large range bag of weap- and involvement with third party vendors. The
ons and hid on the roof of the house. Plaintiff’s city council voted to terminate plaintiff’s employ-
parents called police to do a welfare check; police ment, and plaintiff raised questions that the ter-
were not able to immediately locate the plaintiff. mination was in retaliation for raising concerns
Police called for backup and called in a search-and- about the public utilities’ finances, while defen-
rescue unit; troopers allowed a canine assisted unit dant argued the termination was a result of the
to search the surrounding areas. Plaintiff eventu- growing discord between plaintiff and city staff.
ally agreed to surrender to police, and exited his Plaintiff brought claims of retaliation, breach of
hiding space unarmed. Plaintiff alleged that after good faith and fair dealings, breach of contract,
he was detained, two defendant/state troopers or- and deprivation of his property and liberty inter-
dered their police dogs to attack plaintiff while ests, and the city moved for summary judgment
doing nothing to prevent the dogs from attack- on all claims. The court granted the motion in
ing. Defendants disputed the events of the alleged part and denied in part. As to retaliation, defen-
attack, and instead alleged that plaintiff refused dant argued plaintiff failed to establish the con-
the police command to drop to his knees, and the nection between his termination and his reveal-
dogs were only deployed to secure him. One dog ing the utilities scheme, but the court found there
was not disengaged because the defendant trooper was sufficient evidence to present the theory to a
thought plaintiff still had a weapon, and was only jury. The court found that plaintiff’s employment

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune