Opinion
No. FST CV 08 5007491 S
March 30, 2009
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO REARGUE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (109.00, 115.00)
On March 4, 2009 this court granted the defendant Weiner's Motion to Stay Proceedings "absent objection." Unbeknownst to this court the plaintiff Lewis had objected to the Motion. This court then granted plaintiff's Motion to Reargue and heard oral argument on March 26, 2009.
The defendant based his motion on the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties contained in a written contract signed by both Lewis and Weiner on May 24, 2005. Weiner's Motion for a Stay is premised on General Statutes §§ 52-408 and 52-409 which make written agreements to arbitrate enforceable and authorizes a Superior Court to stay legal actions until the arbitration has been held.
Lewis does not contest the existence of the written arbitration agreement which states," [a]ny claim arising out of or related to the contract . . . shall . . . be subject to arbitration." Rather, she contends that the written contract with Weiner violates the provisions of the Home Improvement Act, General Statutes § 20-429(a) and the provisions of the Home Solicitation Sales Act, General Statutes § 42-135a and therefore the contract and its arbitration agreement are unenforceable. Further, the plaintiff contends that her claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, General Statutes §§ 42-110a et seq. (CUTPA) should not be subject to arbitration. This court disagrees with both contentions.
In Nussbaum v. Kimberly Timbers, Ltd., 271 Conn. 65 (2004) the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a claim similar to the Lewis's claim in this case that a contract was unenforceable was a claim "arising out of or related to the contract" and is therefore arbitrable. Id., 74.
As far as this court can tell the Connecticut Supreme Court has not once suggested CUTPA claims cannot, or should not, be arbitrated. In CT Page 5808 Fink v. Golenbock, 238 Conn. 183 (1996) the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a CUTPA claim should have been submitted to arbitration. Id., 198-99 and n. 10. In MedVal USA Health Programs, Inc. v. Memberworks, Inc., 273 Conn. 634 (2005) the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed an arbitration award of punitive damages pursuant to CUTPA. In light of the strong policy in favor of arbitration this court determines that CUTPA claims are arbitrable.
The Motion to Stay is granted.