DocketNumber: No. CV 98 0577970 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 10878
Judges: O'NEILL, J.
Filed Date: 9/4/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On August 8, 1997, the Court (L. Paul Sullivan, J.) dismissed the claims of Lewis Street Holding and Pendleton but allowed the action to continue with respect to Dana Wright. On February 13, 1998, the Court (Devlin, J.) dissolved plaintiff's Notices of Lis Pendens. Mr. Wright amended his complaint to include a theory of recovery based in
Following these rulings, on or about February 27, 1998, Mr. Wright filed this action on behalf of only Lewis Street Holding against only the City and alleged essentially the same facts — that Lewis Street Holding was wrongfully prevented from purchasing the Cutter Site as a result of actions by the Mayor and certain City Council Members. Mr. Wright filed another set of CT Page 10880 Notices of Lis Pendens which this court order dissolved on July 27, 1984. That order has been stayed. The City has also moved to strike all but one of the counts in this complaint.
The plaintiff now has an attorney and seeks to cite in, as defendants in this case, the individuals as noted above.
CGS §
None of these proposed defendants own any interest in the subject properties nor were any of them parties to the contract sued upon. It is true that they were at relevant times duly elected council persons of the City of Hartford and as such were involved in voting on various city resolutions in regard to the properties.
CGS §
Does this complaint set forth a cause of action against any of these individuals?
The plaintiff brings its action only against the City in five counts. The first count is for interference with a contract between the City and the plaintiff. That count does allege that Peters refused to meet with plaintiff "Dana J. Wright" (sic). This refusal is alleged to have "undermined the plaintiff's ability to solve problems created by the City "but there are no facts alleged as to what constituted the undermining or what problems were to be solved. CT Page 10881
The first count also alleges that that Stewart acted improperly but nothing is said about that alleged action interfering with the actual undertaking of the contract.
The second count is for unfair trade practices under C.G.S. § 42-1102. This is not applicable to the persons sought to be cited in.
The third count is for wrongful termination of the contract. It also alleges a "revenge" motive against Peters, DePentima and Stewart but provides no facts.
The fourth count is for negligence in that the City acted negligently as set forth by the "actions described . . . in counts one, two, and three.
The fifth count is for "Failure to Serve the Public Interest." That too is not supported by facts, even if it might be a cause of action.
None of these counts state facts showing a cause of action against any of the persons plaintiff seeks to cite in.
Motion to cite in is denied.
O'Neill, J.