Kari D. Nettles fka Kari D. Vazquez v. Mitchell A. Vazquez (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The matter comes before the court by way of the plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Contempt and Sanctions (# 480.00/481.00) dated June 10, 2012, and the plaintiff's Second Emergency Motion for Contempt and Sanctions (# 488.00/489.00) dated June 21, 2012.   Over the course of several hearing dates, the court heard from the defendant and other witnesses, including an expert on the internet and websites.   Accordingly, the court makes the following findings:

1. The evidence supports a finding that Pamela Chiesi, acting as agent for the defendant, caused to be posted on a website an inaccurate and misleading advertisement regarding the counsel for the plaintiff.

2. That on June 6, 2013, this court (Schofield, J.) entered an ex-parte injunction (# 478.00) enjoining the defendant and his agents to “immediately remove all advertisements” regarding Wayne D. Effron and his law firm “which he or his agents have caused to be placed on the Google search engine,” and furthermore, to refrain from placing any further such advertisements thereon.

3. That as to the defendant, the order of the court was clear and unequivocal.

4. That the defendant testified that he made a timely effort to remove the ad from the website, in that within days of receipt of the court order, he directed Ms. Pamela Chiesi, his companion, to take down the advertisement;  that there was no credible evidence that the defendant placed any further such advertisements;  that because of the nature of the internet, elements of the ad continued to be accessible to searchers thereafter;  and that, under all the circumstances, the defendant's actions do not amount to a wilful breach of the provisions of the injunction.

5. That “due process of law requires that one charged with contempt of court be advised of the charges against him, have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation, have the right to be represented by counsel and have a chance to testify and call witnesses in his behalf.”   Bryant v. Bryant, 228 Conn. 630, 637 (1994);  Kelly v. Kelly, 54 Conn.App. 50, 59–60 (1999).

6. That a finding of contempt must be based upon a wilful failure to comply with a clear and unequivocal order of the court.  Sablosky v. Sablosky, 258 Conn. 713, 718 (2001).

7. That “the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are within the sole province of the trial court.”  Stearns v. Stearns, 4 Conn.App. 323, 327 (1985).

8. That this court (Shay, J.) dissolved the injunction on December 5, 2013.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Contempt (# 480.00/481.00) and Second Emergency Motion for Contempt (# 488.00/489.00), and the relief sought therein, are HEREBY DENIED.

THE COURT

SHAY, J.

Shay, Michael E., J.