132 Conn. App. 163
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Lauretti appeals denial of summary judgment arguing collateral estoppel bars Wiacek Farms' claims.
- Wiacek Farms sued the city and Lauretti for interference with business and antitrust claims arising from city actions affecting its subdivision project.
- City opened an open space plan in 1993; Wiacek's 2003-2004 subdivision of about 41 acres adjacent to Shelton High School was approved, bonds posted, and a $2 million mortgage obtained.
- Defendant, as mayor, acquired land in 2003 to develop a competing six-lot subdivision and later discussed purchase or condemnation with Wiacek; city considered condemnation in 2004.
- In 2004-2005, tensions culminated in a condemnation action by the city and an injunction action by Wiacek; the injunction court found no bad faith by the city and condemnation proceeded in 2005.
- Wiacek filed the present action in 2006; Lauretti moved for summary judgment in 2009 arguing collateral estoppel; the trial court denied, concluding issues were not identical and discovery mattered; the present appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars Wiacek's claims. | Wiacek argues the prior injunction determined essential issues and must preclude relitigation. | Lauretti contends the issues are identical and the prior ruling controls. | Not barred; issues not identical and not fully adjudicated in prior action. |
| Do the injunction proceeding issues overlap identity of issues required for collateral estoppel here? | Some overlap supports estoppel because bad faith and eminent domain were touched. | Overlap is insufficient; identity of issues not met. | Issues are not identical; collateral estoppel does not apply. |
| Did the prior case determine the defendant's conduct in the excavation permit matter or only city-wide bad faith in eminent domain? | The prior case implicitly adjudicated conduct affecting the permit process as part of bad faith. | Prior case focused on bad faith in eminent domain, not the excavation permit interactions. | Not determined identically; not preclusive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corcoran v. Dept. of Social Services, 271 Conn. 679 (2004) (identical-issues requirement; collateral estoppel strict identity test)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Jones, 220 Conn. 285 (1991) (standing of nonparty preclusion; privity considerations)
- Dowling v. Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364 (1999) (burden to show issue actually decided in prior proceeding)
- Convalescent Center of Bloomfield, Inc. v. Dept. of Income Maintenance, 208 Conn. 187 (1988) (appealability of denial of collateral estoppel; final judgment context)
- Sellers v. Work Force One, Inc., 92 Conn. App. 683 (2005) (elements of collateral estoppel; actual litigated and necessary to judgment)