Page 31 - CLT112320

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS NOVEMBER 23, 2020 ¦ 31

protected, that the release of data aggrieved that on the caption, in the body of the complaint,
interest, and that having disclosure on a school- and in the return of service. Defendant failed
by-school basis had a potential adverse effect on to appear or hire counsel by the return date.
their medical confidentiality. The court found Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment
the parents had standing, and denied the mo- and entered interrogatories; defendant failed
tion to dismiss administrative appeal. to respond to either, and after five failures to
comply with the Practice Book rules, the court
granted the plaintiff ’s motion for default judg-
BUSINESS TORTS ment. Defendant then moved to open the de-

Court Grants Motion to Strike Claims fault, and plaintiff objected to the motion.
for Unjust Enrichment and Tortious Defendant argued the plaintiff named an im-
proper entity in its discovery requests when it
addressed interrogatories to “Ganim Legal Ser-
Interference with Business Relations vices” rather than “Ganim Legal.” The court

CASE: Barr v. MFI Mgmt., Inc. found no evidence that the defendant did not
COURT: Stamford J.D., Complex Litigation Docket
DOC. NO.: CV-17-5017309 receive any of the notices or pleadings from the
COURT OPINION BY: Hernandez court, and the court therefore found defendant
DATE: July 29, 2020 • PAGES: 14 had actual notice of all pleadings. The court
noted that defendant’s failure to respond was
Plaintiff filed a thirteen-count second amended either significant negligence or intentional dis-
complaint against defendants. Defendants filed regard of plaintiff ’s and court’s pleadings, and
a motion to strike for failure to state a claim. found no good cause requirement to open the
The court granted the motion in part. The court default. The court denied the motion and sus-
first addressed counts three and thirteen, which tained plaintiff ’s objection.
alleged Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
violations and tortious interference with busi-
ness relations. Defendant argued that plaintiff CONTRACTS

lacked standing to bring these claims in his in- Court Found That Defendant Breached
dividual capacity. The court denied the motion
as to these claims because plaintiff alleged that Written Agreement When It Did Not
he suffered reputational and financial damage as Pay Plaintiff
a result of defendants’ conduct; therefore, these
injuries were personal to him. However, the court CASE: Downing v. Dragone Classic Motorcars, Inc.
did grant the motion for the unjust enrichment COURT: Ansonia/Milford J.D.
claim. Defendant argued that plaintiff failed to DOC. NO.: CV-13-5016563
state a claim because he did not allege that defen- COURT OPINION BY: Hiller
dants received any benefit from their unsuccessful DATE: October 20, 2020 • PAGES: 6
scheme to divert a $1 billion investment commit- Plaintiff is an auctioneer who, over the course
ment. The court agreed, finding that defendants of her career, has regularly encountered
did not receive any financial benefit. George Dragone, one of the two co-owners
of defendant. The parties entered into an
agreement where plaintiff would perform as
CIVIL PROCEDURE • LEGAL PRACTICE auctioneer and would be paid 1 percent of the
MANAGEMENT gross proceeds, plus expenses. Plaintiff even-

Court Finds Actual Notice of tually sued defendant for breach of contract
and unjust enrichment. The court found for
Court Pleadings where Defendant plaintiff on the breach of contract claim and
Misidentified on Interrogatories for defendant on the unjust enrichment claim.
The Appellate Court reversed and remanded
regarding the breach of contract claim. The
CASE: Ventura Law v. Ganim Legal, P.C. court again found for plaintiff. The court
COURT: Danbury J.D. found that there was a written contract be-
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6035299 tween plaintiff and defendant, and that defen-
COURT OPINION BY: D’Andrea
DATE: October 30, 2020 • PAGES: 36 dant breached that contract when it failed to
Plaintiff served defendant per marshal’s re- pay plaintiff for her services. The court found
turn service, with the correct defendant named that when the written agreement was drawn up

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune