Page 28 - CLT120720

28 ¦ DECEMBER 7, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

irreparable harm if the appellate stay was terminat- The parties were involved in an operating
ed because the judgment of possession had already agreement in which Paul Stewart Caso was
been entered in favor of plaintiffs in 2019. The the manager and defendant was a mem-
court held that the significance of the effect of the ber. Defendant informed Caso in 2018 that
stay would be most harshly felt by plaintiffs, who he was withdrawing from the agreement as
had been deprived of the possession of the prop- a member. Thirteen days later, defendant
erty since they acquired title to it. Lastly, the court began working for Laurel Rock Company,
stated that public interest was not applicable in this which was a competitor with plaintiff. Plain-
analysis. Therefore, the court found that defen- tiff sued defendant for breach of fiduciary
dants’ actions in filing appeals that raised no new duty. Defendant moved for summary judg-
issues from their prior appeals constituted an ap- ment and the court denied the motion. The
propriate basis for the court to invoke its equitable court found that based on the evidence pre-
powers, and therefore granted plaintiffs’ motion. sented that defendant, at the time he became
associated with Laurel Rock, was no longer
Court Granted Defendant’s Motion for a member of plaintiff. However, the court
Summary Judgment on the Basis of Res found that defendant did not demonstrate
Judicata and Collateral Estoppel that there was no genuine issue of material
fact as to his claim that he did not breach any
duty of loyalty he owed to plaintiff. The court
CASE: St. George v. Hampton Ventures, LLC pointed to the enforceable covenant within
COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford the parties’ agreement that stated the defen-
DOC. NO.: CV-14-6050185 dant was barred from engaging in any activi-
COURT OPINION BY: Noble ty competing with plaintiff ’s business for two
DATE: November 03, 2020 • PAGES: 23
Defendants moved for summary judgment as to year and with a geographical restriction. The
plaintiff’s nine-count complaint, alleging that a court found defendant did that when he went
previous court decision in the U.S. Bankruptcy to work for Laurel Rock just thirteen days
Court barred prosecution in the present case due after leaving plaintiff ’s company. Therefore,
to res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court the court denied defendant’s motion for sum-
granted the motion in part. In the previous case, mary judgment.
the court found that defendant was not unjustly
enriched by acquiring certain real property. Plain- Court Found Defendant Breached
tiff now claimed that her unsuccessful prosecu- Implied Warranty That His Construction
tion against defendant in the bankruptcy forum
has no preclusive effect because different parties Work Would Be Performed in a
were involved. The court disagreed, stating that Workmanlike Manner
the concept of privity allows res judicata and col-
lateral estoppel to bar a subsequent action where CASE: Lester v. Tamayo
the identical persons or entities were not parties COURT: Tolland J.D. at Rockville
to an earlier action. Therefore, the court granted DOC. NO.: CV-19-6017820
defendants’ motion as to all counts except for COURT OPINION BY: Sicilian
two that had not been litigated previously. DATE: November 16, 2020 • PAGES: 15
Plaintiff and defendant entered into an un-
dated agreement where defendant would
CONTRACTS build plaintiff a new deck. The contract did

Court Denied Defendant’s Motion for not include an end or start date, or a notice
of plaintiff ’s right to cancel. The contract
Summary Judgment, Finding Defendant stated a final price of $5,450. Plaintiff paid
in Violation of Covenant Not to over $4,000 in advance and defendant began
Compete the work without a permit. Plaintiff was dis-
satisfied with the quality of work and had
an inspector look at it. The inspector noted
CASE: Paul Stewart Caso Landscaping, LLC v. Havey that there were several building code viola-
COURT: Danbury J.D. tions. Plaintiff sued defendant for breach
DOC. NO.: CV-19-6033554 of warranty, negligence, and violation of
COURT OPINION BY: D’Andrea
DATE: October 14, 2020 • PAGES: 12 the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune