Diamond 67, LLC v. Oatis

Diamond 67, LLC v. Derek V. Oatis et al

No. X03HHDCV126030610S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford, Complex Litigation Docket

September 18, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Ingrid L. Moll, Judge

This matter, sounding in common law and statutory vexatious litigation, arises out of the plaintiff Diamond 67, LLC's (Diamond) efforts to develop a Home Depot store off of Exit 67 of Route 84 in Vernon, and the defendants' intervention efforts to challenge the proposed development on environmental grounds pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-19.^[1] Following a hybrid jury and bench trial, and for the reasons stated below, the court enters judgment in favor of defendants Derek V. Oatis (Oatis), Lobo & Associates, LLC (Lobo & Associates), Ann Letendre (Letendre), and John (a/k/a Jack) Summers (Summers).

At the commencement of trial, the defendants were Oatis, Lobo &amp Associates, Letendre, and Summers, as well as Glenn Montigny (Montigny), Debra Wilson (Wilson), Amy Blaymore-Paterson (Paterson), and James David Batchelder (Batchelder). For ease of reference, the court will refer to this group of eight as the " original defendants." Over the course of the trial, Diamond settled its claims with Batchelder, Montigny Paterson, and Wilson.^[2] Accordingly, the court will refer to Oatis, Lobo & Associates, Summers, and Letendre as the " defendants" or " remaining defendants."

Diamond claims that the defendants' intervention efforts in the following proceedings were vexatious: (1) Diamond 67, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Vernon Docket No. TTD-CV07-4007520S, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville (referred to herein as the " mandamus action"); and (2) Diamond 67, LLC v Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Vernon, Docket No. CV07-4007637-S, judicial district of Tolland at Rockville (referred to herein as the " administrative appeal"). For ease of reference, the court will refer to the mandamus action and the administrative appeal collectively as the " Underlying Proceedings."

I Procedural History

The court begins with a summary of the relevant procedural history of the instant action. The operative complaint is Diamond's third amended complaint dated January 30, 2013, which sets forth the following counts as to the remaining defendants: (1) count one--common-law vexatious litigation, as to Oatis and Lobo & Associates; (2) count two--statutory vexatious litigation under General Statutes § 52-568 (double damages), as to Oatis and Lobo & Associates; (3) count three--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (treble damages), as to Oatis and Lobo & Associates; (4) count four--common-law vexatious litigation, as to Oatis and Lobo & Associates; (5) count five--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (double damages), as to Oatis and Lobo & Associates; (6) count six--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (treble damages), as to Oatis and Lobo & Associates; (7) count twenty-five--common-law vexatious litigation, as to Letendre; (8) count twenty-six statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (double damages), as to Letendre; (9) count twenty-seven--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (treble damages), as to Letendre; (10) count twenty-eight--common-law vexatious litigation, as to Letendre; (11) count twenty-nine--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (double damages), as to Letendre; (12) count thirty--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (treble damages), as to Letendre; (13) count thirty-one--common-law vexatious litigation, as to Summers; (14) count thirty-two--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (double damages), as to Summers; (15) count thirty-three--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (treble damages), as to Summers; (16) count thirty-four--common-law vexatious litigation, as to Summers; (17) count thirty-five--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (double damages), as to Summers; and (18) count thirty-six--statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568 (treble damages), as to Summers. On March 5, 2013, Letendre filed an answer and special defenses, asserting the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, statute of limitations, and advice of counsel. (#157.00.) On March 6, 2013, Summers filed an answer and special defenses, asserting the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, immunity from suit under article first, § 14, of the Connecticut constitution, and advice of counsel.

On February 24, 2015, the trial court, Miller, J., granted all of the original defendants' motions for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence to suggest that Home Depot abandoned the development at issue based on any of the original defendants' conduct. Diamond 67, LLC v. Oatis, 167 Conn.App. 659, 673-74, 144 A.3d 1055 (2016). Diamond appealed from that decision. On appeal, the Appellate Court concluded that " summary judgment was improperly granted, and decline[d] to affirm the court's judgment on any of the alternative grounds proposed by the defendants." Id. at 662. The Court issued the following mandate: " The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to deny the defendants' motions for summary judgment and for further proceedings according to law." Id. at 691. Such summary judgment motions were subsequently denied.

On December 6, 2016, Letendre filed an amended answer and special defenses, asserting the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, statute of limitations, ^[3] advice of counsel, and immunity from suit under article first, § 14, of the Connecticut Constitution. On January 27, 2017, Oatis and Lobo & Associates filed an amended answer and special defenses, asserting the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Thereafter, in resolving various motions in limine, this court issued a decision regarding the scope of the Appellate Court's remand (#273.86), and the matter proceeded toward trial.

A jury trial, which simultaneously served as a trial to the court on certain issues, took place over five weeks from March 1, 2017 through April 4, 2017. On March 30, 2017, Diamond withdrew its common law vexatious litigation claims, as well as its statutory vexatious litigation claims for treble damages, against Letendre and Summers (i.e., counts twenty-five, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, thirty, thirty-one, thirty-three, thirty-four, and thirty-six), leaving against them only the statutory vexatious litigation claims for double damages in counts twenty-six and twenty-nine as to Letendre and counts thirty-two and thirty-five as to Summers.

Prior to the parties' closing arguments, and in light of the unusual nature of a vexatious litigation claim tried to a jury, counsel for Diamond and counsel for the remaining defendants, with the input and approval of the court, agreed to the manner in which the elements of the causes of action and/or special defenses would be divided between the jury and the court for determination.^[4] The jury would decide: (1) whether the participation in the Underlying Proceedings by Oatis, Lobo & Associates, Letendre, and/or Summers caused the Home Depot project in Vernon not to go forward (and if so, what was the resulting financial loss to Diamond); (2) whether Letendre and Summers had proven their special defenses of good faith reliance on advice of counsel; (3) whether Oatis, in connection with his conduct in the Underlying Proceedings, acted with a malicious intent unjustly to vex and trouble Diamond; and (4) in the event of a malice finding as to Oatis, whether Oatis's conduct in the Underlying Proceedings reflected a reckless indifference to the rights of Diamond or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights (and if so, what were the resulting reasonable attorneys fees and reasonably necessary disbursements incurred by Diamond in the present litigation) (i.e., a question directed to punitive damages, see DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven, 220 Conn. 225, 269-70, 597 A.2d 807 (1991)). The court would decide: (1) probable cause and all underlying facts; and (2) the Noerr Pennington defense. The parties agreed that the jury interrogatory responses would be accepted prior to the court rendering its decision on the foregoing issues.

On April 4, 2017, the jury provided its responses to the jury interrogatories, finding in favor of the defendants on the issues of: (1) causation regarding the Home Depot project not going forward; (2) the advice of counsel defense as to Letendre and Summers; and (3) the malice element as to Oatis.^[5] On April 10, 2017, the court held a post-trial hearing for the purpose of having a dialogue with counsel as to what remained pending for the court's consideration in light of the jury interrogatory responses, taking into account any mootness concerns. Counsel agreed that the court would still decide (1) probable cause (i.e., liability for statutory vexatious litigation under § 52-568), (2) whether the Noerr-Pennington defense applies, and (3) statutory damages, if any. On May 5, 2017, the parties submitted post-trial briefs.

Having considered the evidence and arguments of counsel with respect to the issues reserved for the court, and applying the jury's interrogatory responses where appropriate, the court renders this decision and orders that judgment enter: (1) in favor of Oatis and Lobo & Associates with respect to counts one through six; (2) in favor of Letendre with respect to counts twenty-six and twenty-nine; and (3) in favor of Summers with respect to counts thirty-two and thirty-five.

II Findings of Fact

The plaintiff is Diamond. The subject property is a 14.7-acre parcel known as 117 Reservoir Road in Vernon, located off of Exit 67 on Route 84. Diamond purchased the subject property in January 2006, conveyed it to Home Depot U.S.A., Inc....