Brown v. Otake
138 A.3d 951
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Brown, a plastic surgeon, negotiated with Otake to sell his practice; negotiations spanned 2009–2010 but no finalized written agreement was produced.
- Brown alleged Otake promised to buy the practice and that Brown introduced Otake to Saint Francis Hospital expecting a two‑year stipend to support the transition.
- Otake instead took a full‑time position at Saint Francis; Brown sued Otake and the hospital claiming breach of contract, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, breach of covenant of good faith, and tortious interference.
- A motion to strike partly succeeded: the trial court struck the breach of contract and certain other counts for insufficient pleading but allowed misrepresentation and tortious interference claims to proceed.
- At summary judgment the defendants produced affidavits and depositions showing no enforceable agreement, no clear misrepresentations by Otake or the hospital, and no evidence of tortious or malicious interference; Brown submitted no counteraffidavits or evidentiary material.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on all counts; Brown appealed, principally arguing the court violated the law‑of‑the‑case by relying on lack of contract to dispose of noncontractual claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper where prior motion to strike suggested contract formation was immaterial to noncontractual counts | Brown: earlier ruling meant existence of an enforceable contract was immaterial to misrepresentation and tortious interference; law of the case barred relitigation | Defendants: summary judgment properly based on evidentiary record showing no misrepresentations or tortious conduct; earlier ruling addressed pleading sufficiency only | Court: law‑of‑the‑case inapplicable; earlier ruling was on pleadings, not the evidentiary record; judge may reach different view and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether misrepresentation claims survived summary judgment | Brown: allegations in complaint suffice; disputes of fact for jury | Defendants: affidavits and depositions negate that any representations were made; Brown offered no evidence to rebut | Court: summary judgment affirmed — Brown failed to produce evidence creating genuine issue on essential element (existence of misrepresentation) |
| Whether tortious interference claim survived summary judgment | Brown: enforceable contract not required; allegation of business expectancy and interference sufficed | Defendants: no evidence of fraud, malice or tortious means; hospital legitimately offered employment after negotiations ended | Court: summary judgment affirmed — Brown produced no evidence of tortious or malicious conduct; mere disturbance of expectancy is not actionable |
| Whether court applied correct standard (view evidence for nonmoving party) | Brown: trial court failed to view facts in light most favorable to him | Defendants: court applied summary judgment principles; Brown presented no counterevidence | Court: appellate review plenary; viewing record in Brown’s favor yields same result — no genuine factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuart v. Freiberg, 316 Conn. 809 (summary judgment requires plaintiff to raise genuine issue on essential elements)
- Barbee v. Sysco Connecticut, LLC, 156 Conn. App. 813 (summary judgment burdens and evidentiary standards)
- Conboy v. State, 292 Conn. 642 (plaintiff cannot rely on pleadings alone once moving party submits evidentiary proof)
- Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620 (existence of contract necessary for breach and related covenant claims)
- American Diamond Exchange, Inc. v. Alpert, 302 Conn. 494 (elements of tortious interference with business expectancy)
- Breen v. Phelps, 186 Conn. 86 (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine permits second judge to adopt correct view)
- Total Recycling Services of Connecticut, Inc. v. Connecticut Oil Recycling Services, LLC, 308 Conn. 312 (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine and interlocutory rulings)