From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cassotto v. Thibault

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Litchfield at Litchfield
Sep 2, 2009
2009 Ct. Sup. 14948 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)

Opinion

No. CV 09 5005358S

September 2, 2009


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE #104 — SHORT CALENDAR (6/15/09)


I FACTS

From a review of all the pleadings and undisputed portions of affidavits submitted by the parties, the following facts are evident. The plaintiff, Robert Cassotto, commenced this action on December 23, 2008, against the defendant, Timothy Thibault. A one-count revised complaint was filed with this court on May 11, 2009. The revised complaint, which sounds in intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleges that: (1) on August 18, 2006, "the defendant attempted to physically assault the plaintiff with a cart;" (2) on September 20, 2007, "the defendant called the plaintiff `a . . . liar' in the presence of third persons whose identities are not presently known to the plaintiff"; and (3) on March 25, 2008, "the defendant publicly ridiculed the plaintiff in the presence of third persons whose identities are not presently known to the plaintiff, stating that if the plaintiff's job responsibilities were taken away from him, `at least we'll get some work done now!' "The revised complaint further alleges that the defendant intentionally performed the aforementioned acts so as to inflict emotional distress upon the plaintiff, and that he was successful in this regard, thereby causing the plaintiff damages.

On May 28, 2009, the defendant filed the present motion to strike, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint is legally insufficient and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant's motion on June 8, 2009. The defendant filed his reply memorandum on June 12, 2009. Argument was heard before this court at short calendar on June 15, 2009.

II DISCUSSION

"The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest . . . the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint . . ., to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 498, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003). "[I]n determining the sufficiency of a complaint challenged by a defendant's motion to strike, all well-pleaded facts and those facts necessarily implied from the allegations are taken as admitted." (Internal quotation marks emitted.) Violano v. Fernandez, 280 Conn. 310, 318, 907 A.2d 1188 (2006). The court must "construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113, 117, 889 A.2d 810 (2006). "[I]t does [not, however,] admit legal conclusions or the truth or accuracy of opinions stated in the pleadings." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Faulkner v. United Technologies Corp., 240 Conn. 576, 588, 693 A.2d 293 (1997).

"[F]or a plaintiff to prevail on a claim [of] intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must establish: (1) that the actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that the defendant's conduct was tile cause of the plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Alexandru v. West Hartford Obstetrics Gynecology, 78 Conn.App. 521, 526-27, 827 A.2d 776, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 912, 832 A.2d 68 (2003).

In the present case, the defendant argues that the revised complaint is legally insufficient because the plaintiff has failed to plead facts establishing extreme and outrageous conduct as is required under Connecticut law. The plaintiff counters, arguing that the motion to strike should be denied because reasonable minds could disagree as to whether the acts complained of in the revised complaint constitute extreme and outrageous conduct. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants the motion to strike.

"Liability [for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress] has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, `Outrageous!' . . . Conduct on the part of the defendant that is merely insulting or displays bad manners or results in hurt feelings is insufficient to form the basis for an action based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205, 210-11, 759 A.2d 1059 (2000).

"Whether a defendant's conduct is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that it be extreme and outrageous is initially a question for the court to determine . . . Only where reasonable minds disagree does it become an issue for the jury." (Citation omitted.) Id., 210. "[I]n assessing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court performs a gatekeeping function. In this capacity, the role of the court is to determine whether the allegations of a complaint . . . set forth behaviors that a reasonable fact finder could find to be extreme or outrageous. In exercising this responsibility, the court is not fact finding, but rather it is making an assessment whether, as a matter of law, the alleged behavior fits the criteria required to establish a claim premised on intentional infliction of emotional distress." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Davis v. Davis, 112 Conn.App. 56, 66, 962 A.2d 140 (2009).

Even when reading the plaintiff's revised complaint in the light most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency, the court finds that it fails to state a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. At most, the revised complaint alleges that the defendant attempted to physically assault the plaintiff with a cart, and that over one year later, he called the plaintiff "a . . . liar," and also stated that if the plaintiff's job responsibilities were taken away "at least we'll get some work done now!" While the court can certainly appreciate the significance of being subjected to an attempted assault with a cart, this alleged incident, coupled with the latter two, simply cannot, as a matter of law, constitute behavior that is so outrageous and extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

Rather, the incidents complained of by the plaintiff are isolated, and occurred over the course of one and a half years. Moreover, the demeaning statements made by the defendant occurred in the presence of individuals that the plaintiff did not, and still does not know; thereby, detracting from the extreme and outrageous factor. "Conduct on the part of the defendant that is merely insulting or displays bad manners or results in hurt feelings is insufficient to form the basis for an action based upon intentional infliction of emotional distress." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Appleton v. Board of Education, supra, 254 Conn. 211. "[P]laintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Davis v. Davis, supra, 112 Conn.App. 67.

III CONCLUSION

Accordingly, because the revised complaint fails to plead facts establishing extreme and outrageous conduct, the defendant's motion to strike is granted.


Summaries of

Cassotto v. Thibault

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Litchfield at Litchfield
Sep 2, 2009
2009 Ct. Sup. 14948 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)
Case details for

Cassotto v. Thibault

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT J. CASSOTTO v. TIMOTHY THIBAULT

Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Litchfield at Litchfield

Date published: Sep 2, 2009

Citations

2009 Ct. Sup. 14948 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)