149 Conn. App. 571
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- MacDermid I was filed in June 2009 alleging Cookson defendants misused confidential information in a stock purchase bid, among other claims.
- In February 2012, MacDermid I sought to amend to add fraud and tortious interference theories based on new allegations and a former employee’s involvement.
- The court denied the amendment; plaintiff sought reconsideration, which was also denied.
- In August 2012, plaintiff sought another amendment with additional facts and a new breach of contract claim, which the court allowed.
- MacDermid II was then filed duplicating the core facts and theories from the proposed MacDermid I amendments, including a uniform securities act claim.
- The trial court dismissed MacDermid II under the prior pending action doctrine, and the plaintiff appealed, claiming judicial estoppel should bar that dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the defendants be judicially estopped from relying on the prior pending action doctrine? | MacDermid II uses the same facts; defendants contradicted earlier position. | Two proceedings are distinct; positions are not inconsistent; doctrine applies. | Yes; judicial estoppel should apply, and dismissal was improper. |
| Was the trial court’s application of the prior pending action doctrine proper given the alleged identity of actions? | MacDermid II is not duplicative; claims are not identical; court abused discretion. | MacDermid II mirrors MacDermid I; the doctrine justifies dismissal to prevent harassment. | No; the court abused its discretion in applying the doctrine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Assn. Resources, Inc. v. Wall, 298 Conn. 145 (2010) (judicial estoppel limits inconsistent positions across proceedings)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel protects integrity of the judiciary)
- Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548 (2010) (transaction or occurrence test for relation back and related issues)
- Beaudoin v. Town Oil Co., 207 Conn. 575 (1988) (Beaudoin addresses limits of judicial estoppel)
- Sandvig v. A. Dubreuil & Sons, Inc., 68 Conn. App. 79 (2002) (relation back and prior pending action vary by facts; distinguishable here)
- Kleinman v. Chapnick, 140 Conn. App. 500 (2013) (identifies framework for prior pending action analysis)