129 Conn. App. 563
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- New Breed Logistics, Inc. leased space at 300 Montowese Ave., North Haven, with options to expand into adjacent buildings and a right of first offer for those buildings.
- Plaintiff exercised options to lease the grocery and transportation buildings; defendant amended the lease to modify options and alleged conduct affecting rights.
- Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and CUTPA violations; sought TROs, injunctions, declaratory judgment, and specific performance.
- Fencing dispute arose when plaintiff erected a fence for security; defendant demanded removal; plaintiff claimed actions threatened irreparable harm and security of government property.
- Ex parte TRO issued; evidentiary hearing set; temporary injunction entered without a hearing; later dissolved by Judge Robinson after considering irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and remedies at law.
- Court ultimately affirmed dissolution of the injunction, concluding CUTPA was not the governing basis for the injunction and that plaintiff failed to prove irreparable harm or likelihood of success.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CUTPA was properly considered in dissolving the injunction | CUTPA grounds should govern the injunction | CUTPA not the governing basis; irreparable harm analyzed independently | No error; CUTPA not governing basis for the injunction |
| Whether the plaintiff showed irreparable harm to justify the injunction | Fence removal would cause irreparable harm and jeopardize security | No irreparable harm shown; legal remedies available | Irreparable harm not proven; injunction dissolved |
| Whether plaintiff had adequate remedies at law to justify denial of irreparable relief | Remedies at law inadequate given lease rights and fencing | Remedies at law and in equity exist and are adequate | Adequate remedies at law; injunction properly dissolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomasso Bros., Inc. v. October Twenty-Four, Inc., 230 Conn. 641 (Conn. 1994) (discretionary nature of injunctions; plenary review of legal conclusions)
- Tighe v. Berlin, 259 Conn. 83 (Conn. 2002) (burden of proving irreparable harm and lack of remedy at law; sound discretion of court)
- Berin v. Olson, 183 Conn. 337 (Conn. 1981) (irreparable harm and equities balance)
- Johnson v. Murzyn, 1 Conn.App. 176 (Conn. App. 1984) (public official enforcement context; no irreparable harm requirement)
- Conservation Commission v. Price, 193 Conn. 414 (Conn. 1984) (no-irreparable-harm rule origins for statutory injunctions)