DocketNumber: No. X06-CV-97-0157926 S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11449
Judges: McWEENY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/20/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The plaintiff Lane Construction Corporation (Lane) now claims damages on the basis that a provision of the settlement agreement critical to Lane's interest was the stipulation that the terms of the Della v. Lane settlement would remain confidential except as to certain parties identified on the record, and such confidentiality has been breached by counsel for Della. Della was represented throughout Della v. Lane by Brian Donnell, Esq. (Donnell), a partner with Halloran Sage. Lane now contends that Attorney Donnell knew at the time of the Della v. Lane settlement that Della's interest in that litigation had been assigned to Chatham, Inc. (Chatham), a Florida corporation, and that unbeknownst to Lane, Chatham necessarily would learn the terms of the settlement, notwithstanding counsel's in-court representation that confidentiality CT Page 11450 would be preserved. Having since learned about Chatham and its interest in Della v. Lane, Lane brought this action, as amended, against the defendants in both tort and contract, in addition to claiming violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110 (b) et seq. (count eight). Donnell and Halloran Sage filed a counterclaim which, as amended, claims damages from Lane for abuse of process. Before the court is the defendants' motion to strike the CUTPA claim and Lane's motion to strike the amended counterclaim.
"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint [or counterclaim] . . . to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Peter-Michael, Inc. v. SeaShell Associates,
Count eight of the fourth amended complaint is asserted against Donnell for allegedly failing during the course of the Della v. Lane settlement to advise Lane about an assignment by Della of its interest in that lawsuit. Lane contends in count eight that it has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of the alleged unfair and deceptive acts and practices of Donnell. Donnell and Halloran Sage have moved to strike count eight on the grounds that CUTPA claims are not permitted against counsel for an adversary or opponent and are not permitted against attorneys generally unless directed to the entrepreneurial or commercial aspects of the legal profession.
It is well established that CUTPA applies to the business or "entrepreneurial" practices of lawyers toward clients or prospective clients. Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen,
Lane's CUTRA claim relating to Donnell's alleged conduct also is barred because "attorneys cannot be liable to their client's adversaries for alleged unfair trade practices occurring in the course of the attorneys' representation of their client." Field v. Kearns,
Lane has moved to strike the amended counterclaim filed by Donnell and Halloran Sage in which these defendants claim damages, including punitive damages and attorneys fees, for abuse of process. Lane contends in its motion that the amended counterclaim should be stricken because it does not arise out of the same transaction alleged in Lane's complaint, it is based on the institution and prosecution of an action and therefore does not allege a claim for abuse of process, it improperly alleges a suit for vexatious litigation rather than abuse of process, and it seeks remedies that are not authorized by Connecticut law. Donnell and Halloran Sage have opposed the motion.
Essentially, Lane has moved to strike on the basis that the counterclaim as amended fails to properly allege that its own amended complaint constitutes an abuse of process. "An action for abuse of process lies against any person using a legal process against another in an improper manner or to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) CT Page 11452Mozzochi v. Beck,
The Mozzochi court held that abuse of process is not sufficiently pleaded when there was no allegation of injury outside of the normal contemplation of litigation. Id., 497. "For example, there is no claim that the defendants used the pleadings or the process . . . as leverage to coerce the plaintiff to pay a debt or surrender property unrelated to that litigation. Similarly, there is no claim that the defendants used unreasonable force, excessive attachments or extortionate methods to enforce the right of action. . . . Finally, there is no claim that the defendants' purpose in pursuing [the underlying action] was to gain any collateral advantage extraneous to its merits. The only injury of whichthe plaintiff fin the abuse of process claim] complains is that thedefendants improperly continued to pursue f the underlying claim] inorder to enrich themselves . . . at the plaintiff's expense. . . .although they knew that their said lawsuit was without merit." (Emphasis added.) Id., 493-94, 497. "The complaint in no way distinguishes between the costs and benefits ordinarily associated with the pursuit of litigation and the burdens that the defendants in this case allegedly improperly inflicted upon the plaintiff. . . . [T]he plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for abuse of process." Id., 497-98.
Lane argues in its motion that the defendants' counterclaim as amended more closely resembles a vexatious litigation claim, in which a plaintiff must allege and prove that the original action was instituted with malice, without probable cause, and that it terminated in favor of the plaintiff. See, e.g., Schaefer v. O.K. Tool Co., Inc.,
ROBERT F. McWEENY