Kopperl v. Bain
23 F. Supp. 3d 97
D. Conn.2014Background
- This diversity action concerns Kopperl’s assertion of ownership interests in ARI and VRS arising from a business venture with Bain, Rolls, and Neviaser that allegedly failed due to misrepresentation and interference.
- Kopperl’s Third Amended Complaint asserts nineteen counts against various parties; Defendants move to dismiss Counts Three through Nineteen, while First and Second Counts are not dismissed.
- Connecticut law governs the merits of the alleged ownership claims and associated damages, with the court treating the case as a contract- and tort-based dispute over promised ownership interests.
- The court analyzes damages pleading separately from substantive liability, and treats conversion, statutory theft, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy as potential grounds for dismissal or survival depending on the pleading.
- The court ultimately dismisses certain Counts for lack of valid conversion/theft theory and malice requirements, while allowing Counts for tortious interference to proceed and granting leave to amend where appropriate.
- The court sets a deadline (June 27, 2014) for Kopperl to amend the complaint following this ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Damages pleading sufficiency for multiple counts | Kopperl claims damages are alleged with factual, non-conclusory specificity | Damages are insufficiently pled and may be duplicative of First/Second Counts | Damages pleading insufficient;Counts 3–12 may be amended; Count 13 damages sufficient; leave to amend governed by Rule 11. |
| Conversion of ownership interests (Fourteenth Count) | Promised stock interests in ARI/VRS constitute Kopperl’s property | No identifiable property; contract dispute not conversion | Count 14 dismissed for lack of viable conversion claim under Connecticut law. |
| Statutory theft tied to conversion (Fifteenth Count) | Conversion abuse supports statutory theft claim | No independent theft without conversion | Count 15 dismissed with the same rationale as conversion (dependent on Count 14). |
| Tortious interference with contract and with business expectancy (Sixteenth & Seventeenth Counts) | Rolls and Neviaser interfered with Kopperl’s contractual relations and business expectations | Allegations fail to plead improper motive/means | Counts 16–17 survive; claims deemed plausible under Connecticut law at Rule 12(b)(6) stage. |
| Civil conspiracy (Eighteenth Count) | Conspiracy among Bain, Rolls, Neviaser caused damages | Civil conspiracy requires an unlawful act; remaining claims do not plead a criminal/unlawful act | Count 18 dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20 (Conn. 2000) (intangible property not subject to conversion absent document evidence; conversion limited to identifiable rights)
- Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 261 Conn. 620 (Conn. 2002) (conversion requires ownership of money or identifiable property; not mere contractual obligation)
- Deming v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 279 Conn. 745 (Conn. 2006) (money as subject of conversion/theft requires ownership; no title to funds here)
- Mystic Color Lab, Inc. v. Auctions Worldwide, LLC, 284 Conn. 408 (Conn. 2007) (money owed on debt not sufficient for conversion/theft; need identifiable money)
- Weiss v. Wiederlight, 208 Conn. 525 (Conn. 1988) (tortious interference requires improper motive or means; not every interference actionable)
- Solomon v. Aberman, 196 Conn. 359 (Conn. 1985) (illustrates proper pleading of tortious interference when motive and conduct show malice)
- State v. Lavigne, 307 Conn. 592 (Conn. 2012) (ownership concepts in civil vs. criminal context; reconciling lawigen)