Stone v. Pattis
144 Conn. App. 79
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Stone and Zygmunt sue Howd & Ludorf and related defendants for damages arising from prior federal action involving the town of Westport and Doyle hiring; judge trial referees presided over pretrial matters but decisions on motions to strike/dismiss were by judges Brazzel-Massaro and Blawie.
- Plaintiffs filed an initial fifteen-count complaint; Howd moved to strike relevant counts, followed by substitutions, revisions, and amendments culminating in a fourth amended complaint targeting count fifteen.
- Pattis defendants previously represented plaintiffs in federal action; Doyle, formerly with Pattis, later hired by Howd; plaintiffs allege conflicts of interest and improper conduct, but veer toward abuse of process and related claims.
- Court considered Howd’s motions to strike the substitute and subsequent amendments, and ultimately struck several counts from the third amended complaint and dismissed count fifteen of the fourth amended complaint.
- Defendants argued immunity and privilege shield Howd defendants’ communications in the federal action; the court ultimately held immunity barred the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim and dismissed the count.
- The plaintiffs’ challenge on appeal centers on referee involvement, the propriety of striking/revising counts, and subject matter jurisdiction over count fifteen; the appellate court affirms the trial court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge trial referees required party consent | Stone/Zygmunt contend referees lacked consent | Howd argues pretrial referee involvement permitted without consent | Consent not required for pretrial referrals; referees validly participated |
| Whether the court could consider the substitute complaint’s strike | Due process violated by not ruling on original complaint | Practice Book § 10-61 allows addressing amended pleading; substitution proper | Court properly considered strike of substitute complaint |
| Whether stricken counts were properly dismissed as to Howd | Counts for conspiracy, etc., were adequately pleaded | Counts lack sufficient pleading and conflict issues inadequate; immunity applies | Counts properly stricken; abusive process claim insufficiently pleaded |
| Whether the court could revise third amended complaint to delete improper counts | Revision process inappropriate to delete whole counts | Practice Book § 10-35 allows revision to delete improper allegations | Court did not err in overruling objections; deleted counts via revision |
| Whether count fifteen of the fourth amended complaint is barred by immunity | negligent infliction of emotional distress allowed despite immunity | Absolute judicial/public immunity bars such claims | Fourth amended count fifteen dismissed due to absolute privilege in judicial proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Great Country Bank v. Pastore, 241 Conn. 423 (Conn. 1997) (judge trial referee system reduces docket congestion)
- Kumah v. Brown, 307 Conn. 620 (Conn. 2013) (motion to strike standard; procedural posture)
- Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 272 Conn. 776 (Conn. 2005) (absolute immunity for communications in judicial proceedings)
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2013) (immunity when representing a client during proper judicial proceedings)
- Daley v. Wesleyan University, 63 Conn. App. 119 (Conn. App. 2001) (pleading standards and reasonable certainty requirement)
- Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican, 100 Conn. App. 63 (Conn. App. 2007) (abuse of process requires specific misconduct beyond routine litigation)
- Clukey v. Sweeney, 112 Conn. App. 534 (Conn. App. 2009) (attorney liability to non-clients generally limited; no privity requirement)
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2013) (litigation privilege; immunity for conduct during advocacy)