Ibar v. Stratek Plastic Ltd.
2013 WL 4519698
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Ibar sued Stratek Plastic Ltd. in a breach of contract action after Stratek terminated his directorship and the parties disputed ownership interests.
- Ibar claimed a 40.5% ownership (later amended to 40.5%) of Stratek or a related entity based on a prior 1999 shareholder agreement and subsequent communications.
- Stratek argued there was no express contract binding Stratek to Ibar regarding ownership; Stratek was formed in 2002 and was not a party to the 1999 agreement.
- At trial, Stratek moved for a directed verdict arguing Ibar failed to prove a contract; the court granted the directed verdict and held the claim time-barred.
- Ibar sought to set aside the verdict; the court denied this, and Ibar appealed challenging the trial judge’s impartiality and administrative handling.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed the directed verdict, finding no contract established between Ibar and Stratek and noting complexities from the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge independence and impartiality | Ibar alleges Judge Robinson was biased and not independent. | Stratek argues there was no basis to recuse and trial proceeded properly. | Judge independence not shown; no abuse of discretion in denial of recusal. |
| Administrative handling prejudice | Ibar claims docket errors and handling prejudiced his case. | Stratek contends no demonstrated prejudice from docket issues. | No reversible prejudice found from administrative handling. |
| Directed verdict for Stratek | Ibar asserts there was evidence of a contractual agreement binding Stratek to Ibar’s ownership. | Stratek contends no express contract between Ibar and Stratek existed. | Directed verdict proper; no prima facie contract evidence linking Ibar to Stratek. |
| Evidence supporting contract theory | Ibar relied on 1999 shareholder agreement and post-formation communications to show binding terms. | Stratek shows communications did not bind Stratek or ratify the 1999 agreement. | No evidence that Stratek ratified the 1999 agreement or that a contract existed binding Stratek to Ibar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Levesque v. Bridgeport Hospital, Inc., 286 Conn. 234 (Conn. 2008) (standard for construing record in light of favorable view to non-moving party)
- Burns v. Quinnipiac University, 120 Conn. App. 311 (Conn. App. 2010) (rule re recusal and approached bias in adjudicatory process)
- McKenna v. Delente, 123 Conn. App. 137 (Conn. App. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for recusal motions)
- Saczynski v. Saczynski, 109 Conn. App. 426 (Conn. App. 2008) (discretion in bifurcating issues at trial)
- Housing Authority v. DeRoche, 112 Conn. App. 355 (Conn. App. 2009) (mutual causation and contract formation standards regarding offers and mutual assent)
- Curran v. Kroll, 303 Conn. 845 (Conn. 2012) (plenary review of directed verdict standard)