Page 34 - CLT120919

34 ¦ DECEMBER 9, 2019 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

in part the habeas court’s decision. Petitioner argued EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
in his ineffective assistance of counsel claim that he
was not properly advised regarding the plea offer Court Upholds Motion To Strike in
and would have accepted if he had been properly Employment Dispute Case
advised. The court found there was no evidence that
petitioner would have accepted the deal, even if his CASE: Sempey v. Stamford Hosp.
counsel had recommended it. The court found the COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
habeas court’s decision to dismiss the second count DOC. NO.: AC 42215
on cruel and unusual punishment was improper and COURT OPINION BY: Bright
remanded with direction to deny the count. DATE: November 26, 2019 • PAGES: 10

After several failed attempts, plaintiff, a former em-
ployee of defendant, filed a claim in four counts for
DISPUTE RESOLUTION • wrongful discharge, defamation, negligent infliction
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES of emotional distress, and violations of Connecti-
cut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendant moved
Court Finds No Cause To Overturn to strike all four counts with prejudice, citing that
all counts had previously been stricken by prior
Arbitrator’s Decision Where No courts and were substantively similar and that the
Requirement To Follow Construction plaintiff was an at-will employee so many of her
Industry Standard Existed In complaints were not applicable. The trial court
agreed, and granted the motion to strike, and the
Arbitration Agreement plaintiff appealed. The court found in favor of the

CASE: Asselin & Vieceli P’ship, LLC v. Washburn defendant and upheld the trial court’s decision. The
COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 41439 court found plaintiff failed to point to any specific
COURT OPINION BY: DiPentima provisions of her employment contract or public
DATE: November 26, 2019 • PAGES: 10 policy standards which would establish a wrongful
discharge. The court found that in unemployment
Plaintiff owned and operated a marina and con- compensation hearings, the administrator, referee,
tracted with the defendant to repair the bulkhead review board and witnesses in the hearings had an
at the marina. Shortly after the work was done, the absolute privilege to publish defamatory matters
bulkhead deteriorated and was rendered unusable. related to the quasi-judicial proceeding. The court
Plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant found insufficient allegations were pled to sustain
alleging negligence, misrepresentation, and viola- the motion to strike her emotional distress claim,
tion of Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The as well as her CUTPA claim, and upheld the trial
claim was stayed pursuant to arbitration, and the ar- court’s finding on motion to strike.
bitrator awarded damages to the plaintiff including
compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. Defen-
dant filed a demand for a trial de novo, and plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT
filed an application to confirm the award. The trial
court denied the motion for trial de novo, confirmed
the arbitration award, and the defendant appealed. CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES
Defendant argued that the arbitrator had failed to
take a mandatory oath, failed to follow construction
industry standards of arbitration, and that plaintiff Contacts Entered Into by Defendants
failed to file required documents in conjunction with Were Binding
the application to confirm the award. The court up-
held the trial court’s decision. The court found the CASE: Property Tax Mgmt., LLC v. Worldwide Prop., LLC
plaintiff failed to present the arbitrator’s failure to COURT: Fairfield J.D. at Bridgeport
DOC. NO.: CV18-6077100
take the oath and the missing required documents COURT OPINION BY: Thim
before the trial court during the hearing, and there- DATE: November 20, 2019 • PAGES: 9
fore did not preserve the issues for appeal. Next, the The court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff as to
court found there was no language in the arbitration all but one of 13 defendants, finding that the defen-
agreement that required the arbitrator to follow con- dants entered into a contract with plaintiff and were
struction industry standards, and as such she did not obligated to pay plaintiff’s fees. The City of Bridge-
exceed her authority when not applying those rules. port notified 13 property owners that their properties
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. were the subject of increased tax assessments. Twelve

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune