182 Conn. App. 55
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Town of Plainville and its animal control officer (Weinhofer) seized 47 animals from Almost Home Animal Rescue after complaints and a criminal search-and-seizure warrant; the town paid for medical care, food, and shelter.
- Plaintiffs first filed a verified petition under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a seeking a court determination that the animals were abused/neglected and reimbursement for town expenses; parties later entered a stipulation adopting out the animals and the court dismissed the petition without adjudicating abuse or awarding reimbursement.
- Plaintiffs then sued Almost Home in Superior Court on two counts: (1) negligence per se based on alleged violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-247(a) (care of impounded/confined animals), and (2) unjust enrichment for defendant’s failure to reimburse the town.
- Defendant moved to strike both counts: arguing plaintiffs were not within the protected class of § 53-247(a) for negligence per se and that § 22-329a(h) affords an adequate (exclusive) statutory remedy precluding unjust enrichment.
- Trial court granted the motion to strike both counts and later entered judgment for the defendant; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court applied proper standard on motion to strike | Court impermissibly relied on facts beyond pleadings | Court used legal conclusions while applying correct motion-to-strike standard | Affirmed: court stated proper standard and its "findings" were legal conclusions, not improper fact-finding |
| Whether § 53-247(a) supplies negligence per se | § 53-247(a) establishes statutory duty/standard of care for negligence per se | Plaintiffs are not within the class the statute protects (statute protects animals); statute criminalizes conduct, not civil remedies to municipalities | Affirmed: plaintiffs are not within protected class, so negligence per se claim fails as a matter of law |
| Whether § 22-329a(h) precludes unjust enrichment claim | Plaintiffs contend they can pursue unjust enrichment and that prior stipulation left reimbursement claims open | Defendant: statutory § 22-329a(h) provides the remedy for reimbursement and is adequate; plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed/settled § 22-329a proceeding before adjudication | Affirmed: unjust enrichment unavailable because plaintiffs had an adequate statutory remedy under § 22-329a(h) which they did not pursue to judgment |
| Whether prior stipulation preserved right to later seek damages outside § 22-329a | Court’s earlier remark allowed plaintiffs to seek other actions later | Stipulation contains no express waiver or reservation of statutory preclusion; court could not bless an action that is legally unavailable | Held: no express agreement in stipulation; court’s comment did not create a legal right to pursue unjust enrichment outside statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480 (2003) (motion to strike standard and pleading interpretation)
- Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell, 295 Conn. 240 (2010) (broad construction of pleadings; facts necessarily implied are admitted)
- Considine v. Waterbury, 279 Conn. 830 (2006) (explaining negligence per se concept)
- Duncan v. Mill Management Co. of Greenwich, Inc., 308 Conn. 1 (2013) (two-part test for negligence per se: protected class and type of harm)
- Gore v. People’s Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360 (1995) (negligence per se requirements)
- National CSS, Inc. v. Stamford, 195 Conn. 587 (1985) (common-law remedy unavailable when adequate statutory remedy exists)
- Polverari v. Peatt, 29 Conn. App. 191 (1992) (elements of unjust enrichment)
- U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins. Co., 10 Conn. App. 125 (1987) (equitable relief unavailable if adequate legal remedy exists)
- Himmelstein v. Windsor, 116 Conn. App. 28 (2009) (appellate standard for motion to strike)
- Saunders v. Firtel, 293 Conn. 515 (2009) (presumption that trial court applied cited legal standard)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 103 Conn. App. 69 (2007) (plenary review of legal standard applied on motion to strike)