148 Conn. App. 176
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- In 2004, the defendants filed an underlying action against the plaintiffs and others over environmental contamination tied to a property sale, with eighteen asserted claims.
- The parties entered arbitration to bifurcate liability and damages, with the arbitrator deciding liability; damages would be resolved by the court.
- Arbitrator found for the plaintiffs on most claims and deemed count seventeen nonjusticiable; the court later remanded issues to the arbitrator.
- From 2010 to 2011, the trial court remanded for further proceedings or clarification, but no final order confirming or vacating any supplemental award was entered, and the damages phase had not been scheduled.
- The plaintiffs commenced a vexatious litigation action in 2011; defendants moved to dismiss in 2012 arguing lack of ripeness because the underlying action had not terminated in the plaintiffs’ favor, among other things.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the vexatious litigation action ripe for adjudication given pending underlying action claims? | Scalise argues some underlying claims have terminated in their favor, making the vexatious action ripe. | Gre yrock entities contend the underlying action has not fully terminated, so the vexatious action is not ripe and the court lacks jurisdiction. | Not ripe; underlying action not fully terminated. |
| Does the favorable termination requirement apply to all claims or only severable ones? | Plaintiffs contend a partial favorable termination suffices for proceeding on some counts. | Defendants argue the requirement applies to all claims, and partial termination does not permit proceeding. | Requires final termination of all counts; partial termination insufficient. |
| Can vexatious litigation proceed when some claims were terminated but others remain pending? | Plaintiffs rely on limited exceptions where some underlying claims terminated. | Court should not permit vexatious litigation until all underlying claims terminate. | Limited exceptions do not apply; all counts must terminate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keller v. Beckenstein, 305 Conn. 523 (2012) (subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law; lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived)
- Bloom v. Miklovich, 111 Conn. App. 323 (2008) (court lacks jurisdiction if action is not ripe for adjudication)
- Somers v. Chan, 110 Conn. App. 511 (2008) (requires termination in plaintiff's favor for vexatious litigation claims to proceed)
- Zeller v. Consolini, 235 Conn. 417 (1995) (favorability termination serves to discourage unfounded litigation and prevent collateral attacks)
- DeLaurentis v. New Haven, 220 Conn. 225 (1991) (concerns supporting the favorable termination requirement)