163 Conn.App. 248
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiffs G. L. Capasso, Inc. and Giuseppe Capasso sued neighbors Ian and Carolyn Christmann alleging defamation, tortious interference, extortion (labeled prima facie tort), intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and CUTPA violations arising from a public dispute over a fence and related public statements.
- Defendants moved for permission to file summary judgment after the case was assigned for trial; the court granted permission and defendants filed a motion for summary judgment supported by affidavits, emails, and a newspaper article.
- Plaintiffs filed an opposition and later a supplemental memorandum and affidavits after the court directed counsel to provide (1) precise identification of the cause of action in count one and (2) specific record citations for disputed facts and quoted statements; the supplemental filing did not provide the specific quotations or pinpoint citations requested.
- At the hearing the trial court found plaintiffs’ supplemental brief inadequate, heard no argument on the merits, and granted summary judgment solely because plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with the court’s instructions.
- The appellate court held the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on that basis without first determining whether defendants met their initial burden to show there was no genuine issue of material fact; judgment reversed and case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could grant summary judgment solely because plaintiffs filed an inadequate opposition | Capasso: court should not decide on procedural inadequacy without addressing merits; defendants had not shown entitlement to judgment | Christmann: plaintiffs failed to follow explicit court orders; insufficient opposition justifies judgment | Court: cannot grant SJ solely for an inadequate brief; trial court must first determine whether movant satisfied burden for SJ |
| Whether defendants met burden to show no genuine issue of material fact | Capasso: defendants did not conclusively negate elements of plaintiffs’ claims; plaintiffs’ affidavits created factual disputes | Christmann: submitted affidavits, emails, and article showing claims fail as a matter of law (e.g., statements nondefamatory or lack of proximate harm) | Court: trial court never addressed whether defendants met their burden; improperly skipped this step |
| Effect of plaintiffs’ failure to follow explicit court directions | Capasso: counsel tried to comply and filed supplemental materials; insufficiency should not justify SJ without merits review | Christmann: counsel’s noncompliance justified dismissal-like sanction | Court: criticized counsel and did not condone noncompliance, but held sanction of SJ was improper without first evaluating defendants’ prima facie showing |
| Remedy on appeal | Capasso: requested reversal and remand for merits consideration | Christmann: urged affirmance based on procedural default and inadequate opposition | Court: reversed summary judgment and remanded; allowed trial court on remand to reconsider merits of defendants’ motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Marinos v. Poirot, 308 Conn. 706 (discusses standard and review for summary judgment)
- Romprey v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 310 Conn. 304 (describes burden-shifting in summary judgment practice)
- Provencher v. Enfield, 284 Conn. 772 (purpose of summary judgment to avoid needless trial when no real issue exists)
- Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, 224 Conn. 240 (nonmoving party’s obligations once movant meets prima facie showing)
- Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 (discusses limits on sanctions like granting SJ for misconduct)
- Ferri v. Powell-Ferri, 317 Conn. 223 (summary judgment moving-party burden reminders)
- Stuart v. Freiberg, 316 Conn. 809 (additional discussion of summary judgment standards)