Page 26 - CLT122820

26 ¦ DECEMBER 28, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT only applies to written arbitration agreements
rather than compulsory arbitration. The court
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW • affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that
DISPUTE RESOLUTION the trial court correctly found they lacked sub-
ject matter jurisdiction under §52-417 where
Court Finds It Lacked Subject Matter the award was issued pursuant to compulsory
Jurisdiction to Confirm Compulsory arbitration.
FEE DISPUTES

Arbitration Court Declines to Adopt
Presumption of Attorneys’ Fees in
CASE: Brass City Local, CACP v. City of Waterbury CUTPA Violation
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20337
COURT OPINION BY: Palmer
DATE: December 09, 2020 • PAGES: 11 CASE: Stone v. East Coast Swappers, LLC
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
Plaintiff, a union of police officers for the city DOC. NO.: SC 20382
of Waterbury police department, was under a COURT OPINION BY: McDonald
collective bargaining agreement with the city. DATE: December 11, 2020 • PAGES: 16
Once the agreement expired, and because the
ongoing negotiations hit an impasse, the par- Plaintiff loaned third party Keithan (his son-
in-law) the money to cover the repair estimate
ties entered arbitration before the state Board for his car, which was to be serviced by defen-
of Mediation and Arbitration pursuant to a dant. The repair estimate skyrocketed, and the
compulsory binding arbitration agreement. bill for repairs went unpaid as the car remained
Once the board entered its award, the city in defendant’s possession. Plaintiff eventually
began paying retroactive wages in accordance won a judgment against Keithan for the un-
with the new agreement, but declined to pay paid loan, and filed a notice of intent to sell the
retroactive extra duty wages. The plaintiff car, claiming a lien against it. Defendant sold
brought a complaint with the trial court ask- the car at auction without providing notice
ing the court to confirm the interest arbitra- to plaintiff, and plaintiff eventually brought
tion award pursuant to §52-417. The city op- a claim against the defendant directly, alleg-
posed and moved for dismissal, arguing the ing a violation of Connecticut Unfair Trade
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Practices Act for failure to provide notice of
trial court granted the motion to dismiss, rea- the auction. The trial court found in favor of
soning that they lacked jurisdiction to confirm the plaintiff on the CUTPA violation, but de-
the arbitration award under Chapter 909 be- clined to issue punitive damages or attorneys’
cause the ability to confirm arbitration awards fees without proven evil motive or malice. The

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune