Braca v. Utzler
41 A.3d 1210
Conn. Super. Ct.2011Background
- Braca filed 2011 action against Utzler alleging fraud, extortion, civil RICO, CUTPA, and vexatious litigation/abuse of process related to Utzler's 2003 investment in Braca's development business, following a prior related suit.
- The first litigation (May 2006) alleged fraudulent inducement and related claims; Utzler prevailed at trial and Braca appealed, with Appellate Court affirming in 2009.
- Utzler moved for summary judgment on counts remaining in this action, asserting statute of limitations and res judicata, and sought dismissal of vexatious litigation claim.
- The court held the wrongful conduct began in 2003 with the investment and culminated with the May 2006 complaint in the first litigation; thus the limitations period ran by May 2009 for counts 1, 2, and 5.
- Count 4 (Civil RICO) is governed by a four-year limitations period; the case was not commenced within four years of the alleged acts, so count 4 was also barred.
- The court applied transactional res judicata, finding counts 1, 2, 4, and 5 barred as claims arising from the same investment and suit as the first litigation; count 7 (vexatious litigation/abuse of process) was also resolved in favor of Utzler, leading to dismissal of remaining counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are counts 1, 2, and 5 time-barred? | Braca argued accrual occurred upon appellate affirmation; not accepted. | Limitations accrued with the 2003–May 2006 conduct; May 2009 expiry. | Yes; counts 1, 2, and 5 barred. |
| Is count 4 (RICO) time-barred? | Not expressly stated here; Braca contends cognizable RICO claim. | RICO accrual based on acts before first litigation; not timely filed. | Yes; count 4 barred under four-year limit. |
| Are counts 1, 2, 4, and 5 barred by res judicata? | Counts should be allowed to proceed notwithstanding first litigation. | Claims arise from the same transaction; should have been raised or decided in first litigation. | Yes; all four barred by res judicata. |
| Is count 7 (vexatious litigation/abuse of process) viable? | First litigation was vexatious/abuse of process; Braca seeks relief accordingly. | Braca prevailed in the first litigation; lack of probable cause shown here. | Granted; count 7 resolved in Utzler's favor; vexatious/abuse claims barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farnsworth v. O'Doherty, 85 Conn.App. 145 (Conn. App. 2004) (limitations period begins at act date, not discovery)
- DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (Conn. 1991) (probable cause and favorable termination considerations for vexatious litigation)
- Scalzo v. Danbury, 224 Conn. 124 (Conn. 1992) (transactional test for res judicata applicability)
- Connecticut Building Wrecking Co. v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 227 Conn. 175 (Conn. 1993) (transactional scope and preclusion principles for successive actions)
- Falls Church Group, Ltd. v. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, LLP, 281 Conn. 84 (Conn. 2007) (vexatious litigation standards and favorable termination considerations)
- Harris v. Bradley Memorial Hospital & Health Center, Inc., 296 Conn. 315 (Conn. 2010) (reconsideration of favorable termination and related policy considerations)