DocketNumber: No. CV91-0283873
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 8905
Judges: STEVENS, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Filed Date: 8/6/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The court found that "Carroll's actions are simply too remote and incidental to any conceivable "trade or commerce" conducted by him in order for plaintiffs to establish a CUTPA violation." This finding was based on the court's review of the totality of Carroll's actions and activities, which included, but was not CT Page 8906 limited to, the fact that the parties were not business competitors. This finding is reasonably based on the require and does not require reconsideration.
Lastly, the plaintiffs argument that the court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining damages is clearly frivolous. The "ascertainable loss" requirement is a threshold requirement limiting the class of people who may maintain a CUTPA action. There is no question that the plaintiffs may maintain the action. In order to acquire compensatory relief, however, the plaintiffs must prove that the defendant's actions proximately caused them "actual damages". See C.G.S. Sec. 42-110 (g). The court found that the plaintiffs "failed to establish any "actual" damages sufficient to allow a compensatory recovery under CUTPA." This finding is reasonably supported in the record and does not require reconsideration.
Therefore, the motion to reargue and/or set aside the judgment is denied.
Dated August 6, 1998.
Stevens, J. Judge of the Superior Court