Page 30 - CLT120720

30 ¦ DECEMBER 7, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

Defendant filed a motion to stay pending ar- plaintiffs were no longer actively involved in
bitration and mediation and all proceedings a child protection case, they had no inter-
in this action until the parties mediated the est in obtaining a declaratory judgment or
claims in plaintiff ’s current complaint. The injunctive relief. The court agreed. It found
court granted the motion. The court stated that plaintiffs failed to allege any current le-
that because the subcontract and construction gally cognizable harm resulting from Doran-
involved in the underlying dispute involve in- tes or DCF; the Juvenile Court proceedings
terstate commerce, federal law controlled the were terminated, and the minor children have
analysis. The Federal Arbitration Act requires been returned to their parents. Therefore, the
only two inquiries: whether there is a valid court granted the motion as to count one. The
agreement to arbitrate and if so, whether the court also granted the motion as to count five,
particular dispute sought to be arbitrated falls which alleged several different causes of ac-
within the scope of the arbitration agreement. tion including breach of fiduciary duty, find-
Here, plaintiff claimed that defendant breached ing that sovereign immunity applied because
the subcontract by failing to pay plaintiff for the claims were brought against the state.
work that plaintiff performed at the project. However, the court denied the individual de-
The court, following the FAA analysis, found fendants’ motion to dismiss counts three and
that there was clear and unmistakable evidence four based on qualified immunity.
of an intent to allow an arbitrator to decide is-
sues of arbitrability in this matter, based on the
arbitration provision. FEE DISPUTES • BANKRUPTCY •
CIVIL PROCEDURE

FAMILY LAW • ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Court Dismissed Plaintiff’s Breach
of Contract Suit, Finding Lack Of
Court Granted in Part Defendants’ Jurisdiction Because Defendant’s Debt
Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Regarding was Discharged via Bankruptcy
DCF Allegations

CASE: Doe v. Comm’r of Dep’t of Children & Families CASE: Gundelsberger Law Offices, LLP v. Smeriglio
COURT: Litchfield J.D. at Torrington
COURT: Waterbury J.D., Complex Litigation Docket DOC. NO.: CV-20-6024158
DOC. NO.: CV-20-6053076
COURT OPINION BY: Bellis COURT OPINION BY: Shaban
DATE: November 12, 2020 • PAGES: 14
DATE: November 10, 2020 • PAGES: 30
Dad Doe and Mom Doe had two children. Plaintiff entered into a representation and fee
The five-year-old son began engaging in sex- agreement with defendant regarding defen-
ualized behavior with his younger cousin, so dant’s divorce. Defendant failed to make his
the parents hired two in-home childcare pro- required payments. Plaintiff sued defendant in
viders. Two years later the childcare providers, a two-count complaint alleging breach of con-
dissatisfied with a reduction in their hours of tract and unjust enrichment. Defendant filed
work, coached the younger daughter into mak- a motion to dismiss and the court granted it.
ing false accusations of sexual abuse against Defendant argued that the debt that formed
her brother, contacted other family members the basis of plaintiff ’s complaint had been dis-
and the parents were arrested. One provider, charged in bankruptcy and therefore the court
Sarah Farrell, recorded cell phone videos of lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the mat-
daughter making the abuse allegations. An ex- ter. Plaintiff argued that the debt was not dis-
pert drafted a report in which he said Farrell’s charged because plaintiff did not have notice or
videos were falsified, but defendants did not actual knowledge of the bankruptcy proceed-
incorporate this report into their treatment ing. The court agreed with defendant. It stated
plan. The children were eventually returned that plaintiff did not allege that any portion
to the parents’ care. The parents sued defen- of the debt was incurred after defendant filed
dants and defendants moved to dismiss. The his chapter 13 petition. The court also noted
court granted the motion in part. Defendant that it was irrelevant that plaintiff did not have
Dorantes, who is the Commissioner, moved knowledge or notice of defendant’s bankruptcy
to dismiss count one on the basis that plain- filing. Because defendant’s debt was discharged
tiffs lack standing. She argued that because and plaintiff was permanently enjoined from

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune