Sloane v. Bhatia

Jill Sloane v. Darcy Bhatia

No. UWYCV146023186S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury, Waterbury

April 28, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#161)

Andrew W. Roraback, J.

The issue presented is whether the court should grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff's amended complaint. The plaintiff's two-count amended complaint alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendant moves for summary judgment as to count one on the ground that the defendant's conduct was not sufficiently extreme and outrageous to sustain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to count two, the defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that the defendant's conduct did not create an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional distress. In addition, the defendant moves for summary judgment as to both counts on the ground that she is protected by a qualified immunity in reporting criminal conduct to the police. For the reasons that follow, the court hereby grants the motion for summary judgment as to count one and denies the motion as to count two.

FACTS

This action stems from a police report that the defendant made to the Southbury police department on March 1, 2013 in which the defendant recounted information allegedly provided to her by her children that one of them had been mistreated by the plaintiff. On March 25, 2014, the plaintiff, Jill Sloane filed a seven-count complaint against the defendant, Darcy Bhatia. The plaintiff later withdrew counts six and seven which both alleged libel. On October 10, 2014, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss count one which alleged intentional interference with a business relationship, for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant [59 Conn. L. Rptr. 133]. On December 17, 2014, the defendant moved to strike counts two (malicious prosecution) three (abuse of process) and four (intentional infliction of emotional distress) of the original complaint. The plaintiff agreed that counts two and three should be stricken. On April 23, 2015, the court granted the defendant's motion to strike counts two, three and four of the original complaint.

On May 11, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint consisting of two counts: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress^[1] and (2) negligent infliction of emotional distress.^[2] According to the plaintiff's amended complaint the plaintiff was, at all relevant times, the girlfriend of the defendant's ex-husband, Raj Bhatia. Raj Bhatia and the defendant are the parents of two minor children, Jesse and Remy Bhatia, who share their time between both parents.

With respect to count one, intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff alleges the following facts. The defendant falsely and maliciously stated to police officers Kyle Baudoin and George Slaiby that the plaintiff grabbed one of her sons and bruised him. Additionally, the defendant falsely and maliciously accused the plaintiff of having a pattern of yelling at and hitting the children. Moreover, the defendant coached her children to falsely accuse the plaintiff. When she filed her complaint, the defendant knew that the plaintiff had not done anything that warranted filing a report with the police. The defendant instituted the report against the plaintiff in order to gain favor in family court at the expense of her ex-husband and in contravention of the advice of her therapist, Patricia German. The defendant used her false complaint to try to secure a court order prohibiting the plaintiff from seeing the children and limiting Raj Bhatia from having contact with the children except under court supervision. In doing so, the defendant falsely represented to the court that her actions were endorsed by German. The defendant's wrongful and malicious actions caused the police to question the plaintiff and to fill out a warrant for her arrest, which was rejected by the state's attorney for lack of probable cause. As a further result of the defendant's actions, the police were mandated to report the false complaint to the Connecticut department of children and families (DCF). Thereafter, DCF interrogated the plaintiff, but later closed its investigation, finding the accusations to be unsubstantiated. As a result of the defendant's malicious and wrongful conduct, the plaintiff suffered emotional distress.^[3]

With respect to count two, negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff alleges the following additional facts. The defendant initiated a formal criminal complaint, accusing the plaintiff of abusing one of her children. The defendant based her complaint on what her son allegedly told her, that the plaintiff physically hurt him and scared him. Consequently, the police investigated the plaintiff for violating General Statutes § 53a-61, assault in the third degree, and General Statutes § 53-21, risk of injury to a child. The police completed an arrest warrant application, which was later rejected by the state's attorney for lack of probable cause.

On May 18, 2015, the defendant filed a motion to strike both counts of the amended complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. On October 27, 2015, the court denied the defendant's motion to strike both counts of the plaintiff's amended complaint. With regard to count one, the court found the allegations to be sufficiently egregious to set forth a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. With regard to count two, the court denied the defendant's motion to strike because she had failed to challenge the allegations for negligent infliction of emotional distress in her previous motion to strike several other counts of the original complaint. The original complaint had contained a negligent infliction of emotional distress count which was repeated verbatim in the amended complaint.

On November 19, 2015, the defendant filed an answer and special defenses. The defendant left the plaintiff to her proof regarding the allegations and asserted two special defenses. The first special defense is that all of the defendant's statements about the plaintiff were substantially true. The second special defense is that the defendant had a qualified privilege in making the alleged statements, she acted in good faith, and she did not abuse this privilege. The plaintiff denied the allegations of the special defenses in her reply filed on November 23, 2015.

On December 7, 2015, the defendant filed a motion for permission to move for summary judgment. On December 9, 2015, the plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the motion. On February 3, 2016, the court granted the defendant's motion.

Presently before the court is the defendant's motion for summary judgment, filed on February 3, 2016, which is directed at both counts of the plaintiff's amended complaint. The defendant moves for summary judgment as to count one on the ground that the defendant's conduct was not so extreme and outrageous as to justify a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. As to count two, the defendant moves for summary judgment on the ground that the defendant's conduct did not create an unreasonable risk of causing the plaintiff emotional distress. Moreover, the defendant moves for summary judgment as to both counts on the ground that she is protected by a qualified privilege.^[4] The motion is accompanied by a memorandum of law. On February 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. On the same day, the plaintiff filed a corrected memorandum in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, removing duplicate documents that appeared on the record.^[5]

DISCUSSION

I

As a threshold matter, the court will address two procedural issues raised by the parties. The first issue the court will address is the plaintiff's argument in her corrected brief in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment that a motion for summary judgment is not the proper vehicle to contest the legal sufficiency of her claims. The second issue the court will address is the defendant's argument in her reply to the plaintiff's corrected brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that certain of the plaintiff's evidence submitted in support of her opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment is inadmissible at trial, and therefore, should not be considered by the court in ruling on the present motion for summary judgment. The court will address these issues in turn.

A

Preliminarily the court will address the plaintiff's argument in her corrected brief in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment that it is not proper to move for summary judgment to test the legal sufficiency of her amended complaint. At the outset, the plaintiff concedes that, with respect to count one, the defendant's use of a motion for summary judgment is proper to challenge whether the plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To the extent that the defendant attempts to use a motion for summary judgment to challenge the legal sufficiency of the amended complaint, however, the plaintiff argues that this is procedurally improper. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the defendant waived her right to challenge the legal sufficiency of the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim because she failed to move to strike that count earlier.

In her reply brief, filed on February 29, 2016, the defendant argues that her ...