This antitrust case involved plaintiff Remington Products challenging the acquisition of Schick Incorporated's electric shaver assets by defendants North American Philips Corporation and its parent N.V. Philips, asserting claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and related Connecticut statutes. The court had previously granted summary judgment to defendants on January 7, 1991, ruling that Remington failed to demonstrate antitrust injury. In this memorandum and final judgment, the court resolved outstanding issues by awarding Remington $178,162.37 in discovery sanctions plus interest from the judgment date, dismissed all claims on the merits for lack of antitrust injury, and ordered each party to bear its own costs. The core reasoning was that the absence of antitrust injury was dispositive of all legal theories, while prejudgment interest on sanctions was deemed appropriate under the circumstances despite Rule 37 not explicitly authorizing it.
In Remington Products, Inc. v. North American Philips, Corp., the plaintiff brought antitrust claims against the defendants alleging injury from their business conduct. The district court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants on the antitrust injury issue, then denied it upon reconsideration in light of intervening circuit precedent. After the Supreme Court's decision in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., the defendants sought further relief, prompting the court to reexamine its prior order under principles allowing modification of interlocutory rulings when there is a change in controlling law. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not raised a genuine issue of material fact on antitrust injury under the ARCO standards and therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants.
This case is a private antitrust suit by Remington Products, Inc. against North American Philips Corp., N.V. Philips, and Schick, Inc., alleging that NAPC's 1982 acquisition of Schick's electric shaver assets violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by threatening competition in the U.S. electric shaver market. The court ruled on cross-motions for partial summary judgment, granting judgment to the defendants. The core reasoning was that Remington failed to demonstrate antitrust injury, as its claimed harm consisted only of lost profits from increased competition rather than any reduction in competition or threat to its viability, consistent with Supreme Court precedent such as Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc.
In this case, plaintiff Ralph Tillquist sued Ford Motor Credit Company for alleged wrongful repossession of his automobile and unfair debt collection practices under Connecticut law. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the repossession was not wrongful because the contract's anti-waiver clause permitted FMCC to repossess despite prior acceptance of late payments, and there was no requirement for prior notice of default under the circumstances. However, the court found that FMCC violated unfair collection practices rules and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act through repeated harassing calls to the plaintiff's family and workplace. As a result, the court awarded the plaintiff $500 in punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees, even though no actual damages were proven.
This federal diversity case involved a wrongful death and loss of consortium claim arising from a 1982 two-car collision that killed Anthony Stefano; his widow sued the other driver, a Texaco service station, and Chrysler (manufacturer of both vehicles) under negligence and product liability theories. After the plaintiff settled with the driver and Texaco, Chrysler sought to implead Texaco for contribution via a third-party complaint and moved to certify novel state-law questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The court denied certification, reasoning that it had already fully briefed and researched the issues and that certification would delay rather than expedite resolution. It granted Texaco's motion to dismiss the contribution claim, holding that Connecticut's Product Liability Act permits impleader against non-sellers but that settled defendants are protected from contribution claims by settling defendants to encourage settlements and consistent with comparative fault principles.
This case was a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident in which plaintiffs Haim Yuzari, Nahemi Yuzari, and Naftaly Hirshman obtained jury verdicts against defendant Southern Auto Sales totaling over $1.1 million before reductions for 35 percent contributory negligence and prior settlements with other defendants. Southern Auto moved for remittitur to offset the settlement amounts against the verdicts and to reduce the loss-of-consortium award by the contributory negligence percentage, while the plaintiffs sought additur on grounds that the verdicts were inadequate. The court analyzed these motions under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-216a, which requires a finding that a verdict is excessive or inadequate as a matter of law before ordering remittitur or additur, and applied precedents such as Peck v. Jacquemin and Alfano v. Insurance Center of Torrington to determine that settlement offsets were appropriate where the combined amounts would render the verdicts excessive as a matter of law. The court further held that the consortium award should not be reduced by the contributory negligence percentage and dismissed one plaintiff's claim for lack of prosecution.