New Connecticut business litigation decisions and lawsuits of interest for February 2011:
Schirmer v. Souza
The Appellate Court upheld an award in favor of the plaintiffs on claims of unjust enrichment concerning renovations to a residence on defendants’ property. In a somewhat strange set of facts, the plaintiffs loaned money to the occupants of a home thinking they had title when the defendants actually had title. The defendants sold the house after the renovations. Plaintiffs expected over $100,000 from the sale of home to cover the renovation costs and instead got nothing. Plaintiffs sued an recovered based on unjust enrichment.
The Appellate Court upheld denial of summary judgment holding that a court finding in a pre-judgment proceeding could not provide the basis for summary judgment. Plaintiff moved for a prejudgment remedy and it was denied because the defendant raised a defense based on the plaintiff’s failure to be licensed. The defendant then tried to use that same ruling to obtain a judgment in the case. The trial court denied the motion finding that the earlier ruling was not sufficient. The Appellate Court upheld the denial of summary judgment and agreed that the ruling in the prejudgment remedy proceeding could not be the basis of the summary judgment ruling.
The Appellate Court adopted the trial court’s findings in full in this case involving two complex commercial disputes over the ownership and security interests in restaurant equipment. The plaintiffs alleged breach of a purchase and sale agreement and a promissory note related to the equipment. The most significant aspect of the decision is the trial court’s decision to hold the individual defendants liable for the corporate defendants.
This case was filed in the federal district court over breach of a non-compete agreement. The parties reached a stipulated settlement requiring the defendant to either file for bankruptcy or pay plaintiff $66,000.00 by way of a stipulated judgment. At the time of the settlement agreement, the defendant was not sure of his ability to file for bankruptcy. After agreeing to settle, the defendant either changed his mind or was not able to file for bankruptcy. The defendant then tried to back out of the settlement. The trial court ruled in plaintiff’s favor following arguments on a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court ruled that a litigant cannot agree to a settlement and then change his mind after the fact. The court entered judgment.
This is a trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act, and a copyright infringement act under the Copyright Act. The action is brought by Coach , well known for its leather made products like handbags and wallets. Coach owns several trademarks in various classes for its goods dating back to 1963 for leather goods and wallets. Coach alleges that its trademark is famous. Coach also alleges that many of the combinations or design elements on its products are "protected works" under the Copyright Act. Coach alleges that the defendants are selling look a likes from a retail store in Connecticut.
The lawsuit gives some insight as to how trademark owners can police their products. In this case, Coach sent a private investigator into the store to purchase the fake Coach products. The products were retailing for far less than Coach’s genuine products.
This is a whistleblower lawsuit. Ms. Millan alleges she was fired from AIG Financial Products after identifying irregularities in AIG stock trading. She alleges that she was employed as a compliance associate and reported the irregularities to her supervisor and then was "shut out of the investigation and subjected to intimidation." She alleges she was fired shorty thereafter. The complaint seeks recovery for retaliatory discharge under Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Connecticut’s whistleblower law (31-51q). The irregularities related to AIG employee stock trades at time when AIG was considering bankruptcy.