Page 29 - CLT122820

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS DECEMBER 28, 2020 ¦ 29

Department of Transportation and defen- Tamburro unilaterally, and without warning,
dant entered into a contract to make certain tried to remove him as a member. The par-
upgrades to a train station. The contract ties entered into a standstill agreement that
was signed by defendant’s president. Plain- outlined the parties’ obligations to stay the
tiff made payments pursuant to an insurance pending motion for injunctive relief so that
policy with DOT. A fire destroyed a portion the Tri Tech owners could work towards a
of the project and DOT submitted an insur- resolution. Several years later, plaintiff filed
ance claim under its own policy. Pursuant a motion for dissolution of defendant Tri
to that policy, plaintiff issued a settlement Tech. The court denied the motion. Plain-
check to DOT for over $1 million. Plain- tiff ’s basis for its motion was that Tri Tech
tiff now claims that it is subrogated to the was acting in a manner that was oppressive
rights of the DOT to the extent of the pay- and harmful to him. Defendants claimed
ments it made in connection with the fire. that plaintiff was trying to destroy Tri Tech
Plaintiff also claims it is entitled to sum- and take its business for himself through his
mary judgment as to defendant’s liability for newly formed company. The court held that
damages based on defendant’s breach of a plaintiff ’s motion for dissolution did not
section of the Standard Specifications. The contain any sworn affidavit containing a fac-
court granted plaintiff ’s motion for sum- tual basis for the motion. The court noted
mary judgment as to liability only. The issue that this type of motion requires the court
before the court was whether defendant’s to engage in a fact-intensive analysis; while
failure to assume responsibility for the fire’s the court recognized that plaintiff may be
damages and expenses constituted a breach frustrated with the pace of compliance with
of contract. The court examined the par- discovery, this decision needed to be made
ties’ contract and found that rehabilitation based on factual evidence presented at trial.
of the old station, where the fire occurred,
was part of the project. The contract also
provided that defendant was responsible for DAMAGES

the project until it was relieved by DOT. The Court Granted Plaintiff’s Application
court also found that the applicable statute
defining Standard Specifications provided for a Prejudgment Attachment
that defendant must repair damages to the
project caused by “the action of the ele- CASE: Lockhart v. NAI Elite, LLC
ments.” Therefore, the court found that de- COURT: Hartford J.D. at Hartford
fendant was liable for the damages under the DOC. NO.: CV-18-6098616
contract, and that defendant breached its COURT OPINION BY: Noble
duty under the contract by failing to repair DATE: November 25, 2020 • PAGES: 4
the damages at its own expense.
This matter involved a claim for unpaid real
estate commissions where the court ultimate-
ly rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff.
CORPORATE ENTITIES The court found that plaintiff had proven

Court Denied Plaintiff’s Motion for that what started as an independent con-
tractor agreement evolved into an employer-
employee relationship and awarded plaintiff
Dissolution of LLC, Finding Lack of a damages. Plaintiff applied for a prejudg-
Factual Basis ment attachment in the amount of the judg-
ment with interest through 2021 for a total
CASE: Marena v. Tri Tech Mech., LLC of $156,431. The court found that plaintiff
COURT: Stamford J.D., Complex Litigation Docket established probable cause that judgment will
DOC. NO.: CV-17-5016878
COURT OPINION BY: Ozalis ultimately enter in that amount. Defendants,
DATE: December 03, 2020 • PAGES: 6 who did not file an opposition to plaintiff ’s
Plaintiff and defendants Chila and Tam- application, argued that the trial court erred
burro are the sole members of Tri Tech Me- in its award of attorneys’ fees. The court
chanical, LLC. Each member holds a 33.3% reviewed the previous judge’s decisions and
interest in the company. Plaintiff alleged found that probable cause existed for their
in his complaint that defendants Chila and judgment.

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune