Michael Beaulieu v. Jerry Panos et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, Michael Beaulieu, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 17–44 et seq. moved for summary judgment on February 14, 2011.   On March 22, 2011, the defendants objected to this motion.   On March 28, 2011 the court heard the argument of the parties.   After reviewing the factual allegations and the relevant case law, the court denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

“Summary judgment is a method of resolving litigation when pleadings, affidavits, and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law ․ The motion for summary judgment is designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue when there is no real issue to be tried.”  Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279 (1989).

The plaintiff requests that the court find no genuine issue of material fact as it relates to the allegations of fraud and extortion.   The defendants argue that this is a conclusory opinion of the plaintiff and one that the defendants dispute.  “[S]ummary judgment procedure is particularly inappropriate where the inferences which the parties seek to have drawn deal with questions of motive, intent and subjective feelings and reactions.”  Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99, 111 (1994).   The court finds that while the plaintiff clearly holds the subjective belief that the defendants committed fraud and extortion against him as it relates to his product, those reasons do not compel the court to grant the motion for summary judgment.

“Mere assertions of facts ․ are insufficient to establish the existence of a material fact and, therefore, cannot refute evidence properly presented to the court under Practice Book § 17–45.”  Zielinski v. Kotsoris, 279 Conn. 312, 319 (2006).  “Such assertions are insufficient regardless of whether they are contained in a complaint or a brief.”  McKinney v. Chapman, 103 Conn.App. 446, 451 (2007).  “[S]ummary judgment is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way ․ [A] summary disposition ․ should be on evidence which a jury would not be at liberty to disbelieve and which would require a directed verdict for the moving party ․ [A] directed verdict may be rendered only where, on the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, the trier of fact could not reasonably reach any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as directed.”   Dugan v. Mobile Medical Testing Services, Inc., 265 Conn. 791, 815 (2003).   “A genuine issue has been variously described as a triable, substantial or real issue of fact ․ and has been defined as one which can be maintained by substantial evidence.”  United Oil Co. v. Urban Development Commission, 158 Conn. 364, 378 (1969).  “In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist.”  Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495, 500 (1988).

The court finds that the plaintiff has not met his burden of proof in establishing his basis for summary judgment on his claimed grounds.   For all the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

Ordered this 14th day of April 2011

By the Court:

Alexander, J.

Alexander, Joan K., J.