Ryan v. Town of Hamden

Michael Ryan v. Town of Hamden et al.

No. CV186012651S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New Haven, Meriden

January 13, 2020

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Sizemore, Nada K., J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #114 PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #118

Nada K. Sizemore, Judge

This matter comes to the court for decision on the Defendant Town of Hamden and Hamden Employees Retirement Board Motions for Summary Judgment dated July 19, 2019 (Entry #114) and the Plaintiff Michael Ryan’s Objection dated September 16, 2019 (Entry #118). The matter presented for oral argument at short calendar on October 15, 2019.

After careful consideration and review of the briefs, numerous exhibits and arguments, this court DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment as to the First, Second and Third Counts, on the basis that there are many genuine issues of material fact that are incapable of being decided by this dispositive motion without clarifying testimony and evidence.

As to the negligence claims in Counts Four and Five, the court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of the Defendants finding that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to these counts, and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court bases its decision on the following analysis.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

By Revised Complaint dated July 6, 2018, plaintiff Michael Ryan brings suit by a five-count complaint against the defendants Town of Hamden and the Hamden Employee Retirement Board.

Plaintiff Ryan claims that he was hired by the Town of Hamden Board of Education as a budget manager as of January 24 1983. He was promoted to Asst. Superintendent on July 1, 1992. For his pension benefits, from February 1, 1983 to January 1, 1993, he accrued service under the Town of Hamden pension plan. He became a member of the Teacher Retirement system as of January 1, 1993.

Prior to his work in Hamden, he had served in the military from 1971 to 1975 for a period of three (3) years, eleven (11) months and fifteen (15) days of active service.

He retired from the Town of Hamden and collects pension benefits from the Teacher Retirement system. He does not collect a pension from the town of Hamden as he was one month short of qualifying for benefits. He claims that he was never advised by the Town or the Employee Retirement board that he could have used Hamden Town Ordinance Section 31.33 and used his military service as additional credit under the Town pension plan, so as to qualify for those additional pension benefits.

He now claims the town and the Town Retirement Board are liable to him for failure to provide his pension benefits and by failing to permit him to buy his military services time for purposes of pension eligibility calculations.

By five-count complaint, he asserts claims in breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The first four counts are addressed to the Town of Hamden only and the Fifth Count is addressed to the Retirement Board only.

In the First Count, he claims the Town of Hamden breached its employment and/or pension agreement with him by failing to permit him to buy his military service and by failing to provide pensions benefits. He claims that the Town failed to advise him of the military service option and denied his ability to buy such to bridge the one-month gap. He claims money damages as a result of this breach.

In the Second Count, he claims the Town of Hamden has been unjustly enriched by failing to provide the pension benefits.

Plaintiff in the Third Count claims the Town of Hamden breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the pension and employment agreement by: (a) failing to inform Plaintiff of his ability to buy his military service; (b) failing to inform plaintiff that, at the time of his promotion, he had insufficient credited service to obtain pension benefits; (c) failing to allow plaintiff to buy his military service as credited service; (d) failing to provide an option to plaintiff to obtain the one additional month needed to obtain pension benefits; and (e) failing to provide pension benefits despite his credited service and military service.

In the Fourth Count, plaintiff sues the Defendant Town claiming that it was negligent by:

a. Failing to inform Michael Ryan of his ability to buy his military services;

b. Failing to inform Michael Ryan, that, at the time of his promotion, he had insufficient credited service to obtain pension benefits;

c. Failing to allow Michael Ryan to buy his military service as credited service;

d. Failing to provide an option to Michael Ryan to obtain the one additional month needed to obtain pension benefits; and

e. Failing to provide any pension benefits despite Michael Ryan’s credited service and military service.

Last, in the Fifth Count, plaintiff claims the Hamden Employee Retirement Board was negligent by (a) failing to allow him to buy his military service as credited service; (b) failing to provide an option to Michael Ryan to obtain the one additional month needed to obtain pension benefits; and (c) failing to provide any pension benefits despite Michael Ryan’s credited service and military service.

By Answer and Special Defenses dated August 11, 2018, the defendants generally deny the plaintiff’s claims and raise four special defenses. In the First Special Defense as to First, Second and Third Counts, the defense claims he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In the Second Special Defense addressed to the Fourth and Fifth counts, they claim governmental immunity under common law and/or under C.G.S. Section 52-557n, in that the complained conduct was performed in good faith, without malice, and in the exercise of discretion. And, in the Third Special Defense, defendants claim the negligence Fourth and Fifth counts are time barred by C.G.S. Section 52-584. And in the Fourth Special defense, they claim plaintiff’s own negligence and carelessness contributed to and was a substantial factor in causing the injuries and losses complained of.

Plaintiff Ryan replied to those defenses on October 30, 2018 so pleadings are now closed. By Motion for Summary Judgment dated July 19, 2019, the defendants move for summary judgment on all five counts per Practice Book Section 17-44. In support of said motion, they have filed a supporting Memorandum of Law and the following exhibits, A to (comprising 202 pages of material). In addition, they have filed a Reply Memorandum dated October 10, 2019 as well to support this Motion.

Those supporting exhibits include: (a) deposition transcript of Michael Ryan taken November 28, 2018; (b) plaintiff’s interrogatory responses dated October 5, 2018; (c) Teacher Annual Agreement dated January 24, 1983; (d) Plaintiff’s letter to H. Hernandez dated June 10, 2010; (e) Plaintiff’s letter dated October 9, 2015 to K. Kelly; (f) K. Kelley letter to plaintiff dated February 16, 2016; (g) plaintiff letter to K. Kelly dated March 23, 2016; (h) retirement board meeting agenda and minutes February 8, 2017 and March 8, 2017; (i) undated letter from J. Shears to plaintiff; (j) defendants’ responses to interrogatories dated June 11, 2019; (k) Town of Hamden Ordinances, Section 31.30; (l) retirement plan for non-bargaining service employee dated July 1, 1990; (m) Town of Hamden Charter; (n) correspondence to Atty. Waltman dated February 15, 2017 and (o) correspondence to Atty. Roberts dated October 5, 2016.

The defense raises three main grounds for summary judgment. First, they claim that all claims must fail as they are time barred by the applicable statutes of limitation on the contract and negligence counts.

Second, they claim that all contract allegations must fail because there was no contract or implied contract breached here; because plaintiff did not perform the obligations which would have entitled him to a vested pension under the town retirement plan; to the extent any contract existed, the town did not breach such and plaintiff cannot satisfy each of the required elements for any of his breach of contract, unjust enrichment or covenant of good faith claims.

Third, they claim the negligence claims should fail because neither defendant owed or breached any duty in regard to his pension ineligibility, nor the conduct underlying those claims is immunized by governmental immunity to which no exception applies.

Plaintiff objects to the Motion for Summary Judgment by Objection dated September 16, 2019 and files its own documentary exhibits in opposition to the motion. Essentially, plaintiff Ryan claims that the defendants cannot establish there are no genuine issues of material fact on all the claims launched by the Defendants, so summary judgment is inappropriate. In opposition to the Motion, the Plaintiff Ryan has filed the following 28 pages of exhibits: (1) Affidavit of Michael Ryan dated August 30, 2019; (2) Defendants’ Responses to Request for Admission dated July 16, 2019; and (3) Excerpts of the deposition transcript taken of Plaintiff Ryan.

The parties presented for oral argument on October 15, 2019 at short calendar.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when pleadings affidavits, and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ... The motion for summary judgment is designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue when there is no real issue to be tried ... However, since litigants ordinarily have a constitutional right to have issues of fact...