Leidy Alcantara v. Restaurant Business Associates, Inc. dba Bobby Valentines Sports Gallery Café (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PREJUDGMENT REMEDY

This case comes to this court as an application for a prejudgment remedy wherein the plaintiff seeks an attachment of the assets of the defendants in the sum of $250,000.00.   The court heard the evidence, reviewed the briefs and has decided the case.   There is no dispute that Leidy Alcantara was assaulted by at least one other person at Bobby Valentines Restaurant in Stamford, Connecticut.   There is no dispute that she suffered injuries.   The dispute between the parties is the negligence of Bobby Valentines.   No one disputes that the others who caused his injury are responsible for her injuries.   Essentially, she claims three grounds for responsibility.   The first one is that the defendants were negligent in that they served the other ladies alcohol.   The second ground is that there were minors loitering on the premises in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 30–90.   The third ground is that there was negligent security by Bobby Valentines.

The court finds there is no evidence of service of alcohol to the minors who were on the premises.   It is undisputed that the assaulters were minors.   The invoice submitted to them for meals shows no alcoholic beverages.   In fact, the manager said that they were spotted as minors and were kept in the area that is permissible under liquor regulations to have dinner.   Accordingly, the court finds there is not probable cause to sustain that claim.

The second claim is the violation of the statute.   In a prejudgment remedy, the court is limited to the allegations in the affidavit to determine probable cause.   The violation of § 30–90 was not part of the affidavit.   The parties agreed however, that the pleadings do reflect that and allow that evidence to be admitted concerning the prejudgment remedy.   An expert witness testified concerning the violation and indicated that the area that the assault took place was an area that was prohibited for minors to be in that location.   The statute provides in relevant part:  that “a permittee who either by agent or otherwise permits any minor person to loiter where the sale of alcohol is provided is forbidden.”   Penalties are provided in § 30–113.   Because there was testimony that they knew these ladies were under age, their appearance in the prohibited area where the assault took place is a violation of the statute.

It is clear to this court that this was not just a casual passing through.   They somehow removed themselves from the back dining room to the front dining area as shown on Exhibit A. In that area there was Karaoke music being played.   It is clear that the plaintiff did a performance that did not meet the theatrical expectations of the six women, and they proceeded to make comments concerning her performance.   According to the DJ, the assault took place not immediately after she had performed, but after two other performances had taken place.   Therefore, these minors who were prohibited from that area were there for a substantial period of time sufficient to satisfy the loitering concept of the statute.

Had they not been there, to have listened to her performance, and had they remained in the area where they were permitted, they would not have been involved in an assault on this plaintiff.   This court finds that the statute violation is negligence per se.   It is clear to this court that the plaintiff was in the protected class intended to be protected by the statute.   Accordingly, the court finds that there is probable cause that a judgment will be obtained against the defendants.

As to the negligent security aspects of the case, there is substantial conflicting evidence by, and among the defendants' witnesses as to who did what, when, where and why.   The testimony is very typical of many fight cases that this court has seen.   People who were there who observed, observed many different things concerning locations, time of response, uniforms of participants, first punches, second punches, number of people involved in this scuffle, and otherwise.   The court leaves this factual determination for another day.

The court finds that it is not necessary for this court to rule on that aspect of the case since it has found probable cause on the statutory violation.

The court finds that the statutory violation was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.   The court awards a prejudgment remedy as follows:

1. Economic damages in the sum of $8,525.53 as set forth on the exhibits submitted concerning her injuries.

The photographic evidence shows that she sustained substantial injuries.   The best evidence is that there were five or six girls who piled on top of her to cause her injury as indicated by the testimony by the DJ. One of those people who he pulled off, apparently created a tumultuous situation even for him as a “big guy.”   The plaintiff's front tooth was chipped.   The incident, however, took place on September 23, 2009, and she has not had any remedial work to that tooth at this time.

The court finds non-economic damages in the sum of $40,000.00.   Therefore, a total prejudgment remedy is granted in the sum of $48,525.53.

SO ORDERED.

Edward R. Karazin, Jr.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

Karazin, Edward R., J.T.R.