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. ******************************************************

ROBERT J. CASSOTTO v. GLEN AESCHLIMAN (AC 32263)
Lavine, Bear and Dupont, Js. Argued February 14--officially released July 19, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Shaban, J. [motion to strike]; Roche, J. [motion for judgment; judgment]) John R. Williams, for the appellant (plaintiff). Nicole M. Rothgeb, with whom, on the brief, was Gregg D. Adler, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion

BEAR, J. The plaintiff, Robert J. Cassotto, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Glen Aeschliman. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly struck his complaint in its entirety. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff commenced this action on or about December 23, 2008. By way of a revised one count complaint,1 the plaintiff alleged the following relevant facts: ``3. On or about August 15, 2005, the defendant falsely and maliciously told the plaintiff that the plaintiff's supervisor had directed that the plaintiff need not call in if he expected to be late for work, thereby placing the plaintiff at risk of violating work rules at his place of employment. ``4. Between November 17, 2005, and November 25, 2005, the precise date or dates being unknown to the plaintiff at this time, the defendant stated to third persons, whose identities are not presently known to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff had engaged in outbursts and irrational behavior. The defendant knew such statements were false. ``5. On or about September 20, 2006, the defendant became violently angry at the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to fear for his physical safety.'' The revised complaint further alleged that such actions were extreme and outrageous and were ``carried out with the knowledge and the intention that [they] would cause the plaintiff to suffer emotional distress'' and, consequently, ``the plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.'' On May 28, 2009, the defendant filed a motion to strike the revised complaint, arguing that the plaintiff's allegations were legally insufficient to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the alleged actions did not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct as a matter of law. On September 2, 2009, the court, Roche, J., granted the defendant's motion to strike the one count revised complaint and stated in its memorandum of decision that the plaintiff's allegations ``simply do not, as a matter of law, constitute behavior that is so outrageous and extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and cannot be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'' On March 1, 2010, the plaintiff filed an amended revised complaint that contained allegations substantively identical to those allegations that had been previously set forth in his revised complaint, with an additional allegation that: ``6. On or about May 22, 2008, the defendant threatened to kill the plaintiff, looking directly at the plaintiff and stating: `Bang. Bang.' ''2 On March 12, 2010, the defendant filed a motion to

strike the amended revised complaint on the grounds that, even with the additional allegation, the complaint failed to plead facts establishing extreme and outrageous conduct. On March 30, 2010, the court, Shaban, J., issued an order granting the motion to strike, stating that ``[t]he allegations as amended do not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct.'' On April 15, 2010, the defendant filed a motion for judgment, which was granted by the court. See Practice Book

Download Cassotto v. Aeschliman.pdf

Connecticut Law