Perugini v. Giuliano
148 Conn. App. 861
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Michael Perugini (self-represented) sued attorney Rosemary Giuliano and her firm alleging misconduct in Giuliano’s representation of Perugini’s ex-wife during prior dissolution proceedings, seeking damages for emotional distress and other harms.
- Complaint alleged Giuliano failed to disclose a conflict of interest (prior representation of the presiding judge), exerted improper influence, and filed proceedings without the client’s consent for financial gain.
- Procedural history: pleadings were repeatedly revised and subject to requests to revise/objections; Trombley, J., ordered revisions and later denied Perugini’s motion to amend; deposition of Giuliano was suspended pending closed pleadings.
- Dooley, J., struck the count alleging wilful violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (absolute immunity).
- Perugini filed an August 6, 2012 substitute complaint asserting new counts (conspiracy, alienation of affection, CUTPA, abuse of process, vexatious litigation, intentional infliction of emotional distress); Shapiro, J., sustained defendants’ objection, struck the substitute complaint and entered judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suspension of Giuliano’s deposition until pleadings closed | Order unlawfully reversed prior order compelling deposition; deposition should proceed | Suspension appropriate because pleadings were not revised as ordered and scope depended on operative complaint | Claim unpreserved/abandoned: Perugini acquiesced at hearing and did not timely object; no review |
| Denial of leave to amend (Feb 22, 2012 proposed amendment) | Court abused discretion; courts should liberally allow amendments under Practice Book §10-60 | Amendment was untimely, prejudicial, and would delay trial after 17+ months of litigation | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly denied amendment considering delay, prejudice, and prior opportunities |
| Dismissal of negligent infliction of emotional distress for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (absolute immunity) | Absolute immunity should not apply where attorney allegedly pursued litigation for personal financial gain | Attorney conduct occurred in judicial proceedings and is protected by absolute immunity to preserve zealous advocacy | Dismissal affirmed: alleged misconduct arose in course of judicial proceedings; absolute immunity bars the claim |
| Striking August 6, 2012 substitute complaint and entry of judgment | Substitute complaint filed as of right under Practice Book §10-44; court lacked authority to strike it | §10-44 only permits correcting deficiencies of a stricken complaint, not adding new causes; substitute reasserted disallowed claims and violated prior orders and Practice Book §10-60 | Striking and judgment proper: substitute pleaded new claims and reasserted barred theories; violation of prior rulings; §10-44 not a vehicle to circumvent §10-60 |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2013) (discusses absolute immunity for attorneys and distinction between advocacy acts and nonadvocacy misuse of process)
- Stone v. Pattis, 144 Conn. App. 79 (Conn. App. 2013) (attorney negligent infliction of emotional distress claims barred when conduct occurred during judicial proceedings)
- Wagner v. Clark Equipment Co., 259 Conn. 114 (Conn. 2002) (standards for appellate review of denial of leave to amend pleadings)
- Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2007) (pleadings viewed favorably to plaintiff when assessing subject-matter jurisdiction challenges)
- Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490 (Conn. 1987) (abuse of process defined as misuse of legal process for improper purpose)
- Noble v. Marshall, 23 Conn. App. 227 (Conn. App. 1990) (Rules of Professional Conduct do not create a private cause of action)
- Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co., 179 Conn. 541 (Conn. 1980) (§10-44 substitute pleading proper only to supply essential allegation lacking in stricken complaint)
- GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford, 144 Conn. App. 165 (Conn. App. 2013) (Practice Book §10-44 does not permit adding wholly new legal claims after a motion to strike)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 255 Conn. 390 (Conn. 2001) (Rules of Professional Conduct are regulatory and not a basis for civil liability)
- Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 280 Conn. 225 (Conn. 2006) (upholding denial of amendment on grounds of delay and prejudice)