Emerick v. Town of Glastonbury
173 A.3d 28
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Roger Emerick, a self-represented landowner, sued the Town of Glastonbury alleging upstream development damaged wetlands (claims included private nuisance, trespass, and other torts). Trial began October 27, 2015.
- Over five trial days Emerick repeatedly interrupted the judge, refused to accept evidentiary rulings, revisited matters already ruled on, and made insulting remarks about the judge and opposing counsel in and out of the jury’s presence.
- The trial judge issued progressive sanctions: verbal warnings, directions to stop commenting on rulings, fines ($100 increments), orders to prepare an outline, and explicit warnings that dismissal was a possible sanction.
- Emerick moved repeatedly for mistrial and recusal, argued judicial bias, and persisted in offering inadmissible evidence after rulings; the defendant asked for dismissal during trial.
- On the fifth day the court dismissed Emerick’s case as a sanction for his continuing, contumacious misconduct. Emerick appealed, arguing the dismissal was an abuse of discretion and violated due process and other standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal as a sanction was an abuse of discretion | Emerick argued he did not disobey court rules and dismissal was disproportionate | Town argued Emerick repeatedly and deliberately disobeyed orders despite warnings and fines | Court affirmed dismissal: misconduct was deliberate, progressive sanctions failed, dismissal was last resort |
| Whether the judge should have recused or a mistrial granted for judicial bias | Emerick claimed adverse rulings and comments showed bias and required recusal/mistrial | Town said rulings adverse to Emerick do not prove bias; record lacks substantiation | Court rejected bias claim: adverse rulings alone do not show bias and record did not support recusal |
| Whether misconduct occurring outside jury’s presence bars sanction/dismissal | Emerick contended some misconduct was outside jury presence so sanction was improper | Town said misconduct both in and out of jury’s presence disrupted trial and justified sanctions | Court held sanctions appropriate despite some actions occurring outside jury presence; misconduct nonetheless interfered with administration of justice |
| Whether dismissal violated procedural due process | Emerick argued dismissal denied his day in court and violated state constitutional rights | Town argued court afforded warnings, chances to comply, and dismissal followed failed progressive remedies | Court found due process claim inadequately briefed/recycled prior arguments and rejected it; procedural safeguards (warnings, fines) were applied |
Key Cases Cited
- D’Ascanio v. Toyota Indus. Corp., 309 Conn. 663 (court’s inherent sanctioning power and dismissal as last resort)
- Fox v. First Bank, 198 Conn. 34 (1985) (dismissal not abuse where party shows deliberate disregard for court authority)
- Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, 257 Conn. 1 (2001) (dismissal appropriate for contumacious conduct)
- Pavlinko v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 192 Conn. 138 (dismissal can be necessary to vindicate administration of justice)
- Evans v. Gen. Motors Corp., 277 Conn. 496 (2006) (trial court’s inherent authority and Practice Book sanctions principles)