Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

BERNHARD-THOMAS BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC v. CHET DUNICAN ET AL. (SC 17899)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued November 27, 2007--officially released April 22, 2008

Alan R. Spirer, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Richard A. Roberts, with whom, on the brief, was Jane S. Bietz, for the appellee (defendant Jacques J. Parenteau).

Opinion

VERTEFEUILLE, J. The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that a prejudgment remedy application is not a civil action for purposes of a subsequent claim for the tort of vexatious litigation. We agree that such an application is not a civil action for purposes of a subsequent claim for vexatious litigation, and accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court. The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts and the relevant procedural history. ``The plaintiff [Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC] employed [the named defendant] Chet Dunican1 from April, 2002, until February, 2004, as an at-will employee. On December 19, 2003, the defendant [Jacques J. Parenteau, an attorney representing Dunican] filed an application for a prejudgment remedy on behalf of Dunican against the plaintiff in the amount of $3.5 million [in anticipation of a wrongful discharge litigation against the plaintiff]. The court, Leuba, J., held a hearing over the course of several days and on March 10, 2004, denied the application. Specifically, the court stated that it had applied the probable cause standard and concluded that Dunican had failed to sustain his burden with respect to any of his claims. . . . ``The plaintiff commenced the present action and alleged that it had expended substantial attorney's fees in response to Dunican's application. The plaintiff filed a nine count complaint against both Dunican and the defendant.2 Counts five and six of the complaint alleged that the defendant had violated General Statutes

Download Bernhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican.pdf

Connecticut Law