216 Conn.App. 491
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- In April 2019 Parnoff requested his Stratford assessor file from Tax Assessor Melinda Fonda; town counsel Berchem Moses replied it would review the request for exemptions. Documents were produced on July 29, 2019, but Parnoff proceeded with suit.
- Parnoff sued the town, Mayor Laura Hoydick, Fonda, and Berchem Moses alleging Freedom of Information Act violations, CUTPA violations, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court dismissed the FOIA count for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (no appeal from that dismissal).
- The court struck CUTPA claims: as to Fonda and Hoydick because their conduct was authorized and regulated (§ 42-110c(a)(1)) and not ‘‘trade or commerce,’’ and as to Berchem Moses because alleged conduct was part of legal representation (not entrepreneurial practice).
- The court also struck negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, holding the alleged conduct (an allegedly inadequate records response and incurring legal expenses) did not create a reasonably foreseeable risk of severe emotional distress.
- Parnoff appealed; the Appellate Court affirmed and deemed his due-process argument about striking with prejudice inadequately briefed and abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CUTPA applies to Fonda and Hoydick for handling the records request | Fonda and Hoydick acted outside authority by involving counsel; CUTPA applies | Their actions were statutorily authorized/regulated and thus exempt under § 42‑110c(a)(1) | Exempt under § 42‑110c(a)(1); also not "trade or commerce" |
| Whether CUTPA applies to Berchem Moses (law firm) | Firm engaged in commercial/entrepreneurial conduct by providing unnecessary legal services | Allegations concern legal representation, not entrepreneurial aspects of law practice | Stricken: conduct is part of professional representation, not CUTPA-covered entrepreneurial activity |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress: foreseeability/severity | Inadequate records response and wrongful legal expenses foreseeably caused severe emotional distress | Such conduct does not create a reasonably foreseeable risk of severe emotional harm | Stricken: plaintiff failed to allege facts establishing foreseeability of severe emotional distress |
| Whether striking with prejudice violated due process (court should have required summary judgment) | Court deprived him of process by striking with prejudice rather than requiring summary judgment | Argument inadequately briefed; no authority cited | Issue deemed inadequately briefed and abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Connelly v. Housing Authority, 213 Conn. 354 (1990) (municipal actions pursuant to pervasive statutory/regulatory scheme are exempt from CUTPA)
- Danbury v. Dana Investment Corp., 249 Conn. 1 (1999) (city tax assessment/collection practices exempt from CUTPA under § 42‑110c(a)(1))
- Neighborhood Builders, Inc. v. Madison, 142 Conn. App. 326 (2013) (municipal permitting/fee practices authorized and regulated; CUTPA exemption applied)
- Haynes v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 243 Conn. 17 (1997) (only entrepreneurial/commercial aspects of law practice fall within CUTPA)
- Stancuna v. Schaffer, 122 Conn. App. 484 (2010) (misconduct during litigation insufficient to support negligent infliction claim for foreseeable severe emotional distress)
- Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (2005) (elements for negligent infliction of emotional distress: foreseeability of emotional harm and risk of resulting illness or bodily harm)
- Geysen v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 322 Conn. 385 (2016) (standard of review on motion to strike: pleadings construed broadly and facts taken as admitted)
- Suffield Dev. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. National Loan Investors, L.P., 260 Conn. 766 (2002) (distinguishing entrepreneurial aspects of law from representation excluded from CUTPA)