Raymond Cerilli v. Theresa Lantz et al. (2014)

Ruling on Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement

The plaintiff filed this case pro se in January 2005.   The original complaint named as defendants approximately thirteen department of correction (department) officials, including the commissioner of correction at the time, Theresa Lantz, Drs. Smyth, Silvis, Buchanan and Blanchette, Health Services Manager Furey, Thomas Macura, Mary Johnson, and Patricia Ottolini.   The gravamen of the complaint appears to be the allegation that the defendants were negligent in treating, or were deliberately indifferent to, the plaintiff's medical needs, including various facial ailments.

The record reveals the following additional facts.   On May 31, 2011, the plaintiff, represented by counsel, and the same Assistant Attorney General representing the defendants in the present case appeared before United States Magistrate

Although the participants in the court hearing before Judge Garfinkel did not specifically mention the present case, it is clear that their references to all “civil matters” except habeas matters included the present case.   The present case is a civil matter that was pending at the time of the settlement of the federal case.   The real defendants in interest in both cases are the same department officials, the subject matter of the two cases is similar, and the same Assistant Attorney General has represented the defendants in both cases.   Thus, the present case would logically have been one contemplated by the parties at the time of the federal settlement.   The plaintiff does not appear to dispute that the present case was one that he agreed to withdraw.

Instead, to the limited extent that the court can decipher the plaintiff's two objections filed in opposition to the defendants' motion, the plaintiff appears to argue that the defendants have breached the agreement with regard to the medical treatment they have provided.   Judge Underhill, however, rejected this very argument in the federal case.   Because the parties and issues are the same in the present motion, the plaintiff is collaterally estopped from claiming a breach once again here.   See Alexandru v. Strong, 81 Conn.App. 68, 76, 837 A.2d 875, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 906, 845 A.2d 406 (2004).

Accordingly, the plaintiff is bound by his promise in the settlement agreement to withdraw this case.   Although the plaintiff has failed to do so, the court has inherent power to enforce a settlement agreement such as this one.   See Palladium v. Readey, 144 Conn.App. 283, 291, 72 A.3d 1191 (2013).   Because the most logical way to enforce the plaintiff's failure to withdraw the case is to dismiss the case, the court orders the case dismissed.

In sum, the court grants the defendants' motion and dismisses this case.

It is so ordered.

Carl J. Schuman

Judge, Superior Court

Schuman, Carl J., J.