Michael Bradley v. Paula Moran et al. (2011)

ORDER RE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT # 195 & 197

On April 8, 2010, the defendants, Paula Moran, Anne Moran and Heath Comley, filed two motions for summary judgment and memoranda in support of their motions.   On August 9, 2010, the defendants filed a consolidated and amended memorandum of law, in which they consolidated their arguments regarding the two motions into a single brief.   On September 22, 2010, the plaintiff, Michael Bradley, filed a memorandum in opposition to the motions for summary judgment.   The motions for summary judgment and the plaintiff's opposition are currently pending before this court.

Since the motions for summary judgment were filed, several procedural developments have taken place.   The plaintiff has filed two motions to amend his complaint, one on September 3, 2010, and the second on November 23, 2010.   With respect to the first motion to amend, the defendants filed a motion for extension of time for thirty days in which to respond.   The extension of time was granted but the defendants took no further action.   Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-60(a)(3),¹ the first amended complaint became the operative complaint in this file.

On December 22, 2010, the defendants filed an objection to the plaintiff's second motion to amend.   The plaintiff filed a response to the defendants' objection on December 30, 2010.²  This court considered the second motion to amend and granted the plaintiff's motion in another memorandum of decision.   To summarize, this court determined that the plaintiff's newest complaint does not add any factual allegations, but rather raises an additional legal issue.   The plaintiff's second amended complaint, which he filed on November 23, 2010, adds counts eleven, twelve and thirteen, entitled “tortious interference with expectation,” which are brought against Paula Moran, Anne Moran and Comley, respectively.   The new counts are identical to counts one, four and seven of the complaint filed September 3, 2010, with the exception of the title of the counts.   Counts one, four and seven are titled “tortious interference with contract,” and are also brought against Paula Moran, Anne Moran and Comley, respectively.   Recognizing that “a plaintiff is permitted to advance alternative and even inconsistent theories of liability against one or more defendants in a single complaint”;  Dreier v. Upjohn Co., 196 Conn. 242, 492 A.2d 164 (1985);  this court has granted the plaintiff's second motion to amend.   The second amended complaint, filed on November 23, 2010, is now the operative complaint.

In the memoranda regarding the motions for summary judgment, all of the parties have already addressed the issue of whether the defendants are entitled to judgment on the plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with expectation.   Those claims are contained within the new counts of the second amended complaint.   The court will consider and apply these arguments to counts eleven, twelve and thirteen.

The court believes that the parties have sufficiently briefed the issue of whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims for tortious interference with expectation.   The court reiterates that it will apply the arguments previously presented by the parties to the plaintiff's claims in counts eleven, twelve and thirteen and the parties need not reassert their arguments.   If, however, the parties have additional arguments with respect to counts eleven, twelve and thirteen based on the court's granting of the plaintiff's motion to amend, they may submit additional briefs for the court's consideration by February 4, 2011.

Cosgrove, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Practice Book § 10-60(a)(3) provides, in relevant part:  “[A] party may amend his or her pleadings or other parts of the record or proceedings at any time subsequent to that stated in the preceding section ․ [b]y filing a request for leave to file such amendment, with the amendment appended ․ If no objection thereto has been filed by any party within fifteen days from the date of the filing of said request, the amendment shall be deemed to have been filed by consent of the adverse party.”.  FN1. Practice Book § 10-60(a)(3) provides, in relevant part:  “[A] party may amend his or her pleadings or other parts of the record or proceedings at any time subsequent to that stated in the preceding section ․ [b]y filing a request for leave to file such amendment, with the amendment appended ․ If no objection thereto has been filed by any party within fifteen days from the date of the filing of said request, the amendment shall be deemed to have been filed by consent of the adverse party.”

FN2. The plaintiff filed a duplicate reply on January 5, 2011..  FN2. The plaintiff filed a duplicate reply on January 5, 2011.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.