Page 33 - CLT120720

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 7, 2020 ¦ 33

Plaintiff, a minor child, was seriously injured arrest video requested was not provided, and
when a dog owned by defendant Darren Silva the Commission found a thorough investiga-
bit him on his face. Plaintiff alleged that the tion for the video was conducted, but where
incident occurred on property owned by de- such videos are overwritten every 30 days there
fendant Lantern Hill, LLC, while defendant was no violation.
Silva was leasing the property from defendant
Lantern Hill. Lantern Hill moved for summary
judgment, arguing that it had no knowledge of U.S. DISTRICT COURT

the dog’s vicious propensities and that a land-
lord cannot be liable for injuries from a dog
bite without this knowledge. The court granted EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
the motion. Plaintiff conceded that there was
no evidence that Lantern Hill was aware of any Court Grants Identity of Interest
vicious propensity. However, plaintiff argued Exhaustion Exception to Failure to
that there were facts in dispute as to Lantern Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Hill’s constructive knowledge. The court stated
that there was no evidence that prior to the in-
cident, the dog displayed aggressive behavior, Claim

let alone at a time in which Lantern Hill saw CASE: Arterton
it. The court rejected plaintiff ’s argument that COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
Lantern Hill had a duty to investigate the dog DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-01942
upon learning that Silva would be bringing it to COURT OPINION BY: Arterton
the property. DATE: November 23, 2020 • PAGES: 5

Plaintiff sought to bring an action for violation
of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Act against CTTransit, First Transit and three
individual defendants. Upon filing with the
COMMISSION Connecticut Commission on Human Rights
and Opportunities and the EEOC, the pro se
plaintiff failed to name the individual defen-
PUBLIC RECORDS dants as actual respondents, instead naming
them as “particulars” on the forms. After ob-
Commission Finds No Violation of taining counsel, plaintiff added the individual
Promptness Due to Thanksgiving Holiday defendants to the complaint. The individuals
moved to dismiss the counts against them, ar-
guing plaintiff failed to exhaust her adminis-
CASE: Cushman v. Dir., Cent. Commc’ns trative remedies as to them by failing to add
COURT: Freedom of Information Commission
DOC. NO.: 2019-0719 them on her initial administrative complaint,
COURT OPINION BY: Cannata and had therefore failed to meet the 180-day
DATE: November 18, 2020 • PAGES: 6 statute of limitations. Plaintiff argued applica-
Complainant made a request for all audio, tion of the identity of interest exception should
video and phone recordings and photographs apply because the individuals were listed on the
and incident reports pertaining to the arrest administrative complaint and she filed pro se.
of one Juan Cernas by the Hartford Police. The court found the pro se nature of her fil-
Respondent was confused by the request be- ing weighed in favor of the exception, as did
cause Cernas was arrested by the Middletown the fact that the individuals were on notice that
Police. Respondent took time to sort out the they would be implicated in the formulation of
confusion, and was thereafter briefly delayed the respondent’s answer. The court found only
because complainant’s requests were made by one individual was not named in the factual
USPS mail rather than electronic mail, and allegations of the administrative complaint,
the Thanksgiving holiday. The complainant and he therefore would not have had sufficient
alleged a FOI violation because the informa- knowledge of the allegations. The court grant-
tion requested was not “prompt,” however the ed dismissal as to this individual defendant,
Commission found the request was fulfilled but found on balance the remaining individual
in a timely and reasonable manner. The com- defendants met the threshold requirements to
plainant also argued a violation where the utilize the interest exception, and therefore that

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune