In Mignault v. Ledyard Public Schools, a former paid assistant football coach sued the school district and several administrators, claiming that complaints about his conduct, an investigation into nepotism and bullying violations, his reassignment to an unpaid volunteer role, and the distribution of an investigative report deprived him of a protected property interest without procedural due process, violated his substantive due process rights, and constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress under Connecticut law. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the plaintiff lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in his at-will coaching position or in the school's adherence to internal procedures, that the defendants' actions did not shock the conscience or otherwise violate substantive due process, and that the conduct was not extreme and outrageous enough to support an emotional distress claim.
The case involved a former Wal-Mart employee suing the company for retaliation under Connecticut's Fair Employment Practices Act, claiming she faced hostility, discipline, and termination after participating in a deposition for a coworker's discrimination lawsuit against the employer. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff failed to show that Wal-Mart's stated reasons for its actions—such as poor job performance and violations of company policy—were a pretext for retaliation. The reasoning centered on the lack of evidence of similarly situated employees being treated differently and the absence of temporal proximity between her protected activity and the adverse actions.
This case involved a lawsuit by Paul Ferraresso against the Town of Granby, its police chief, and two officers following his July 2006 arrest, asserting federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments for false arrest and excessive force, a Monell municipal liability claim, and various state constitutional and tort claims. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all eleven counts after the plaintiff submitted an affidavit and damages list. The court denied a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's materials but granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no evidence that the officers violated Ferraresso's constitutional rights, no municipal policy or custom supporting liability, and that state-law claims were abandoned or subject to declined supplemental jurisdiction. Judgment was entered for all defendants on every count.
The plaintiff sued Coca-Cola for employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. Coca-Cola's counsel from Proskauer Rose moved to withdraw after a conflict arose from the firm's representation of Pepsi in a separate false advertising suit against Coca-Cola. The court had granted the withdrawal and now denies Coca-Cola's motion to vacate that order. The court found that the attorney-client relationship had irretrievably broken down, as shown by threats of disciplinary action, and that Coca-Cola would not suffer undue prejudice because it could retain new counsel with time to review the pending summary judgment briefing. Under local rules and professional conduct standards, withdrawal was permissible given the circumstances.
This case involved plaintiffs Edward Peruta and Harris Agricultural Enterprises suing the Town of Rocky Hill, police officers, and attorney Edward Noble for damages after Peruta's arrest on charges related to allegedly stealing a truck from a condominium resident. The suit alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stemming from events where Peruta attempted to evict the resident using a power of attorney and removed the vehicle without police notification. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It reasoned that officers had probable cause to arrest based on the victim's report and statements, that Peruta's constitutional rights were not violated during questioning, and that the remaining claims against the municipality, officers, and attorney lacked merit or were abandoned.
This case involved a dispute between logistics companies where Bacarella Transportation Services sued Right Way Logistics, its former independent contractor, along with Right Way's managing member Michelle Ulery and competitor ICAT Logistics. The claims included breach of a 2004 transportation services agreement that restricted Right Way from competing or diverting business, tortious interference with Bacarella's relationship with customer JC Penney, breach of the covenant of good faith, conspiracy, and statutory liability under Connecticut's LLC law for alleged de facto dissolution of Right Way after it ceased operations and transferred assets to ICAT in 2008. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the tort and related counts without prejudice, allowing those arguments to be raised later, but granted summary judgment on the statutory claim. It reasoned that the facts of ceasing performance, terminating the contract, and selling assets did not establish de facto dissolution under the relevant legal standards, even after considering additional discovery requests.