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. TIMOTHY THIBAULT (AC 32324)
Lavine, Bear and Dupont, Js. Argued February 14--officially released September 13, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Roche, J. [motion to strike]; Shaban, J. [overruling objections to request to revise]; Pickard, J. [motion for nonsuit; 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 May 25, 2010 judgment of nonsuit rendered by the trial court on his amended complaint (third complaint), which alleged a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendant, Timothy Thibault. The court rendered judgment after the plaintiff declined to revise his third complaint in accordance with the order of the court. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court ``erred in holding that the individual paragraphs of the third complaint should be deleted because no one of them, alone, was `extreme and outrageous' and in refusing to consider whether they met that test when read as an entire pattern of conduct.'' We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiff's appeal. On December 23, 2008, the plaintiff commenced this action by service of process, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress by the defendant, whom the plaintiff alleged to be an official in the labor union that represents both the plaintiff and the defendant (first complaint).1 On March 16, 2009, the defendant filed a request to revise the first complaint, requesting, inter alia, that the plaintiff specify whether he was asserting more than one cause of action, that he separate his causes of action and that he provide the material facts on which he was basing his allegations. More specifically, the defendant requested in relevant part that the plaintiff provide the specific material facts on which he was basing the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7, including the nature of the workplace violence of which the plaintiff complained, the names of the individuals who were subjecting the plaintiff to such workplace violence, the nature of the grievances the defendant allegedly refused to file on behalf of the plaintiff, the subject matter of the complaints the defendant was accused of not filing, the manner by which the defendant was alleged to have threatened and intimidated the plaintiff and the names of people present when the defendant allegedly ``publicly ridiculed'' the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not object to the request to revise, and, on May 11, 2009, he filed a one count revised complaint (second complaint) in which he eliminated several of the allegations that had been contained in the first complaint, namely, the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 of the first complaint.2 He revised and realleged paragraph 6 of the first complaint as paragraph 4 of the second complaint. On May 28, 2009, the defendant filed a motion to strike the second complaint, on the ground that the plaintiff's single cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress as pleaded was legally insufficient. Oral argument was held on June 15, 2009. On September 2, 2009, the court issued a memorandum of decision in

which it granted the defendant's motion to strike, stating that the allegations ``simply cannot, as a matter of law, constitute behavior that is so outrageous and extreme as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Rather, the incidents complained of by the plaintiff are isolated, and occurred over the course of one and one-half years. Moreover, the demeaning statements made by the defendant occurred in the presence of an individual that the plaintiff did not, and still does not know, thereby detracting from the extreme and outrageous factor.'' On February 26, 2010, the plaintiff chose to replead3 by filing his third complaint, which set forth, inter alia, the same allegations that had been contained in the second complaint, which had been stricken as insufficient, and the same allegations that were present in the first complaint, which he had omitted from the second complaint.4 With the exception of one additional allegation in paragraph 9 that alleged, ``[o]n or about August 1, 2008, the defendant physically assaulted the plaintiff, causing injury to the plaintiff's back, pain and fear,'' the third complaint is identical to the first complaint, which by virtue of the plaintiff's decision not to object to the defendant's March 16, 2009 request to revise, was ordered to be revised. See Practice Book

Download Cassotto v. Thibault.pdf

Connecticut Law