146 Conn. App. 341
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff The Doyle Group, Inc., a Connecticut political consulting firm, and defendant David Cuddy entered a written consulting contract in March 2008; Cuddy signed the contract and mailed it and a $10,000 check to the plaintiff in Connecticut.
- The contract was to be effective March 3, 2008 for three months and contemplated consulting services performed from Connecticut; subsequent monthly payments of $10,000 were due April 1 and May 1.
- Plaintiff performed consulting work in March–April 2008 by email and telephone from Connecticut; Cuddy terminated the contract on April 10, 2008 and stopped further payments.
- Plaintiff sued Alaskans for Cuddy and later cited in Cuddy; Cuddy moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b(a)(1).
- The trial court denied the motion, the case proceeded to a jury trial, the jury awarded $20,000 to plaintiff against both defendants, and the trial court denied defendants’ motions for directed verdict and to set aside the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Connecticut courts have personal jurisdiction over Cuddy under § 52-59b(a)(1) | Cuddy transacted business in CT by contracting with a CT firm, sending the signed contract and check to CT, and communicating by email/phone; cause of action arose from that transaction | Cuddy never was physically in CT, did not purposefully direct activities to CT, and thus § 52-59b does not apply | Ct affirmed jurisdiction: signing/mailed contract, payment, and communications constituted a purposeful single business transaction in CT under § 52-59b |
| Whether the trial court should have granted a directed verdict on contract construction and Cuddy’s personal liability | Contract ambiguous as to term; plaintiff argued jurors should resolve ambiguity | Defendants argued court should decide unambiguous contract terms as a matter of law and insufficient evidence of Cuddy’s liability | Court declined to review defendants’ directed verdict claim because it was inadequately briefed; no relief granted |
| Whether the verdict should be set aside for insufficient evidence of formation, breach, or because impossibility evidence warranted rescission | Plaintiff argued evidence (contract, check, performance, communications) supported formation and breach; impossibility defense lacked probative support | Defendants argued no enforceable contract or breach and that impossibility excused performance | Court affirmed denial of motion to set aside: reasonable inferences supported jury’s finding of contract formation, breach, and lack of legally sufficient impossibility evidence |
| Admissibility/impact of evidence about third-party firm or other communications | Plaintiff maintained jury could resolve credibility and contractual scope | Defendants argued such evidence undermined plaintiff’s case and warranted directed verdict or new trial | Court found credibility and weight of evidence for jury; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Kenny v. Banks, 289 Conn. 529 (general standards for reviewing personal jurisdiction and statutory interpretation)
- Ryan v. Cerullo, 282 Conn. 109 (definition of "transacts any business" and purposeful availment analysis)
- New London County Mutual Ins. Co. v. Nantes, 303 Conn. 737 (§ 52-59b authorizes jurisdiction where cause arises from transaction)
- Zartolas v. Nisenfeld, 184 Conn. 471 (execution of an out-of-state legal act can still transact business in Connecticut)
- Dills v. Enfield, 210 Conn. 705 (standards for impossibility as a defense to contract performance)