Robert N. Chatigny

This case involved a consumer's claims against debt collection companies under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and two Connecticut statutes, based on a letter sent in 2007 that listed a current balance without disclosing accruing interest. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on the FDCPA claim, ruling that the letter did not clearly state the amount of the debt as required by the statute because it omitted information about potential increases due to interest. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the state claims, finding that the plaintiff had not shown an ascertainable loss under CUTPA and that the CCPA provided no private right of action for claims accruing before July 2007. The analysis relied on an objective standard of how the least sophisticated consumer would interpret the notice.

business & regulatory

This case involves a copyright infringement claim by Peter and David Currin against Arista Records and Sony BMG, alleging that Pharrell Williams' song "Frontin'" infringes their copyrighted song "I’m Frontin’". The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The decision was based on the finding that, even assuming access to the plaintiffs' work, no reasonable jury could conclude the songs are substantially similar. The plaintiffs' objections regarding expert testimony, factual disputes, and credibility issues were deemed insufficient to overcome this determination.

propertyprocedure

In Moroch v. United States, plaintiff Laurie Moroch sued the IRS for a declaration that she holds real property and a 10% interest in future sale proceeds free of federal tax liens filed against her ex-husband Todd for unpaid taxes from 2001-2003. The court granted the IRS's summary judgment motion in part and denied it in part. It held that the 2001 lien attached to the real property because Laurie did not qualify as a judgment lien creditor under 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a) and IRS regulations, as her divorce judgment did not create a lien for a specific sum or designated property. However, the court denied summary judgment on the liens' validity against the 10% sale proceeds interest, finding that Laurie qualified as a purchaser for value and that the IRS failed to show proper recording of the liens with the Connecticut Secretary of State as required by state and federal law.

taxespropertyfamily law

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition by a Connecticut inmate serving a sixty-year sentence for murder, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the state's main witness with a prior sworn statement and that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the trial court's handling of the prosecutor's closing argument. The petitioner had previously raised these ineffective assistance claims in state habeas proceedings, where they were denied on the merits under Strickland v. Washington. The federal court dismissed the petition, concluding that the petitioner failed to show the state court applied Strickland in an objectively unreasonable manner as required for federal habeas relief under AEDPA standards.

criminal lawprocedure

In Stas v. Lynch, a former Connecticut State Police trooper brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a high-ranking CSP official, claiming a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under a 'class of one' theory. The plaintiff alleged he received harsher discipline than similarly situated employees solely due to personal malice. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that such claims are no longer viable in the public employment context following the Supreme Court's ruling in Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, which recognized that discretionary employment decisions inherently allow for differential treatment without violating equal protection.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, a former police officer at Eastern Connecticut State University sued the university and her supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that she was sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor over several months, that her internal complaint led to retaliation by the supervisor's daughter (a coworker), and that the resulting hostile environment forced her constructive discharge. The university moved for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense established in Ellerth, Faragher, and Suders, asserting that it maintained and disseminated an anti-harassment policy and took prompt remedial action once notified of the conduct. The court granted summary judgment to the university, holding that the plaintiff was aware of the reporting procedures but delayed reporting the harassment for months, and that once informed the university promptly investigated, reassigned the supervisor, and ensured no further harassment occurred.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The defendant, a parolee who had absconded, was arrested in a third party's apartment after parole officers and a marshal executed a warrant for his reimprisonment. A pistol was discovered during the initial search of the apartment following the arrest, and ammunition was found later with the occupant's consent; the defendant was indicted for unlawful possession of both and moved to suppress the evidence. The court had previously denied suppression of the ammunition on grounds of voluntary consent but now grants the motion to suppress the pistol. It holds that the Government failed to justify the initial search either as incident to arrest under Chimel v. California, because there was no exigency permitting a search beyond the immediate area, or as a special-needs parole search, because the record did not establish reasonable suspicion or authority under the parole conditions. The ruling rests on Fourth Amendment limits on warrantless home searches and the specific facts of the officers' entry and conduct.

criminal lawguns

In this case, Connecticut-based plaintiffs Shetucket Plumbing Supply and PJ & A sued their New York insurance broker S.C.S. Agency and its president for breach of contract, negligence, and related claims after the broker failed to secure the blanket replacement-cost property insurance covering both Connecticut and Rhode Island locations that had been proposed and bound. The court granted partial summary judgment on the negligence claim as to liability only, finding that S.C.S. acted as the plaintiffs' agent, had a duty to obtain conforming coverage or notify them of the nonconforming policies that were issued, and breached that duty by failing to alert the plaintiffs despite knowing of the mismatch. The court denied summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim because the record did not conclusively establish that the defendants had promised to procure the specific policy rather than merely to apply for coverage and issue a binder. The matter was referred for a hearing on damages.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this case, Connecticut inmate Adam Carmon sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Correctional Officer Duval filed a false disciplinary report against him in retaliation, Counselor Bradway refused to notarize court documents, and Director Levesque placed him in long-term administrative segregation, violating his constitutional rights. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the access to courts claim against Bradway for lack of alleged actual injury and the due process claim against Duval because the alleged retaliation did not involve a constitutional right, but denied dismissal of the due process claim against Levesque. The court reasoned that the prolonged administrative segregation could implicate a protected liberty interest requiring procedural protections, while other claims failed to state viable constitutional violations or lacked personal involvement by defendants. Claims for money damages against Levesque in his official capacity were also dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a former Bureau of Prisons medical secretary who sued the Department of Justice under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging disability discrimination based on her back conditions, sexual harassment by a staff physician through repeated derogatory comments about women, and retaliation for her complaints. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the disability discrimination claim because the plaintiff failed to show her impairments substantially limited a major life activity, and on the retaliation claim because there was no evidence that the decision-makers knew of her protected activity or that it caused the adverse actions. The court denied summary judgment on the sexual harassment claim, finding triable issues of fact regarding the alleged conduct. The ruling rests on the plaintiff's inability to establish key elements of her disability and retaliation claims under the applicable statutes while her harassment allegations survived review.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a dispute over property insurance coverage for Shetucket Plumbing Supply Inc. after a fire at its Rhode Island location. S.C.S. Agency Inc., the insurance broker, had sought blanket coverage for all of Shetucket's properties from Utica Mutual but received policies that provided only limited coverage for the Rhode Island sites, leading Shetucket to sue S.C.S. and S.C.S. to implead Utica Mutual for indemnification under their agency agreement. The court granted Utica Mutual's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party claims. It reasoned that the written policies did not provide the requested blanket coverage, the application did not bind the insurer to those terms under New York law, the losses did not stem from any processing error or bad faith by Utica Mutual, and the indemnification provisions did not apply.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved the family of a teenager killed in a car accident suing the City of Norwich and its police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers' actions in delaying notification of the death, obtaining a photograph through deception, issuing a media statement before full identification, and notifying the family without a chaplain violated the substantive due process rights of the next of kin. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims and dismissed them with prejudice. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and remanded those to state court. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to identify any recognized due process liberty interest in the manner of fatality notification, and even assuming such an interest existed, the officers' conduct did not rise to the level of shocking the conscience because it reflected efforts to confirm the victim's identity and provide prompt notice rather than deliberate indifference to harm.

civil rights

The case Tuccio v. Papstein involved a plaintiff suing a police detective under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, claiming the detective included false information in the arrest warrant application related to charges of making derogatory statements about banks, criminal impersonation, and false statements. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the defendant's affidavit and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The reasoning was that the statements in the affidavit were not hearsay as they showed the detective's state of mind and information available at the time, and there was probable cause for the arrest even considering the plaintiff's claims of omitted information.

civil rightscriminal law

In Perillo v. Astrue, the plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of supplemental security income disability benefits, claiming impairments including obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety disorder, major depression, panic attacks, and neck and back pain. The ALJ had determined the plaintiff was not disabled after applying the five-step evaluation process and discounting the testimony and reports of the plaintiff's treating psychoanalyst and therapist on the grounds that she was not an acceptable medical source. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for reconsideration, holding that the ALJ erred by failing to assess the required regulatory factors for weighing the therapist's opinions as an other source and by incorrectly concluding that such opinions could not be given greater weight than those from acceptable medical sources. The court noted that evidence from non-physician sources may be used to evaluate impairment severity and work-related limitations, and that proper analysis of all relevant factors was required.

federal powerhealthcare

This case involves a plaintiff seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits, with the plaintiff moving to reverse the decision, remand for a hearing before a new ALJ, and award EAJA attorney fees, while the defendant agreed to remand but opposed reassignment to a different ALJ. The court granted the plaintiff's motion in part, ordering remand to a new ALJ under sentence four of § 405(g) and denying the fee request without prejudice as premature. The decision rested on applying the three Robin factors to the facts, finding that the original ALJ's erroneous credibility and functional capacity determinations, along with the need for a fresh assessment of the same issues, warranted reassignment to preserve the appearance of justice, with no countervailing concerns about inefficiency.

procedurefederal power

In Day v. Lantz, an incarcerated plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against state prison officials and doctors, alleging violations of his federal rights based on inadequate medical treatment for a hernia that had grown to the point of imminent strangulation risk, along with refusals to perform surgery at a different hospital or under local anesthesia. The court conducted a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires screening prisoner complaints for frivolousness or failure to state a claim, and liberally construed the allegations to find they stated a viable Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendants Ruiz, Castro, Kahn, and Ottolini. The court dismissed claims under the ADA and Equal Protection Clause without prejudice as secondary to the core issue, dismissed claims against other named defendants, and ordered the remaining defendants to respond to the complaint and show cause regarding the plaintiff's request for emergency injunctive relief.

criminal lawcivil rightshealthcare

This case involved a teacher suing his school board employer and superintendent for conditioning his return from administrative leave on undergoing a psychiatric exam and releasing medical records, claiming violations of substantive due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with related state-law tort claims. Parallel state court litigation on overlapping claims proceeded to a jury trial and appeals, ultimately resulting in judgment for the defendants. The federal court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining substantive due process claims, ruling that res judicata from the state judgment barred relitigation because the federal and state claims arose from the same transaction or series of connected events.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a patent infringement lawsuit where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing his U.S. Patent No. 5,970,118, which claimed an improved cellular x-ray grid. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the patent was invalid for indefiniteness because it included a means-plus-function limitation without disclosing corresponding structure in the specification. The court granted the motion, finding by clear and convincing evidence that the claim's "means for moving of said grid" element invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, but the specification provided no structure for performing that function, rendering the patent invalid under § 112, ¶ 2 and dismissing the case.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this diversity action, Omni Corp. sued Sonitrol Corp. for breach of contract and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act after the defendant failed to notify authorities of a burst water pipe that flooded the plaintiff's store and damaged inventory. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss claims for damages exceeding $300 and the CUTPA claim. It held that the contract's damages limitation clause, capping liability at half a year's monitoring fees or $500 (here $300), is enforceable under Connecticut law based on precedents upholding similar provisions in alarm service contracts, and that a mere contract breach plus the clause does not establish a CUTPA violation or public policy breach.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a student with disabilities, through his parent, suing the Granby Board of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs from a prior administrative hearing, as well as enforcement of the hearing officer's decision. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the request for attorney's fees and costs but denied it regarding enforcement of the hearing officer's orders, while denying the defendant's cross-motion. The reasoning is that the IDEA provides for recovery of reasonable fees and costs by prevailing parents in such proceedings, calculated based on prevailing market rates and supported by the record, but the court lacked authority or the proper basis to enforce the administrative decision in this federal action.

civil rights