Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)

Citation: Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)
Parent Document: Gentile-Riaz v. Samo Thraki, LLC (2025)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10758261/gentile-riaz-v-samo-thraki-llc/ ↗

Full Text

2,189 chars

her whistleblower claim was pursuant to § 31-51m. The
       plaintiff did not attach any documents to her opposition
       to the motion to dismiss in an attempt to dispute the
       proof on which Midway Pizza relied in the attachments
       to its motion to dismiss.
          The court, Papastavros, J., heard oral argument on
       the motion to dismiss on August 3, 2023. On August 11,
       2023, the court issued its memorandum of decision, in
       which it concluded that the plaintiff had administrative
       remedies available through the Department of Labor
       and, therefore, she was required to exhaust those reme-
       dies prior to initiating suit. The court concluded that,
       because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust her adminis-
       trative remedies, the court lacked subject matter juris-
       diction and granted Midway Pizza’s motion to dismiss
       the complaint against it. The plaintiff filed a motion to
       reargue, and Midway Pizza filed an opposition thereto.
       On October 3, 2023, the court denied the motion to
       reargue. The plaintiff then filed a notice of intent to
       appeal from that decision pursuant to Practice Book
       § 61-5.
          On October 18, 2023, Lenoudias filed a motion to
       dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint against him and a mem-
       orandum of law in support of the motion. Therein, he
       argued that the complaint should be dismissed for the
       same reasons as those expressed in the court’s memo-
       randum of decision granting Midway Pizza’s motion to
       dismiss. He further argued that the law of the case
       doctrine should apply. On March 15, 2024, the court,
       Spallone, J., granted Lenoudias’ motion to dismiss, stat-
       ing that it adopted Judge Papastavros’ analysis and that
       dismissal was consistent with the law of the case doc-
       trine. This appeal followed.
          ‘‘We begin our discussion by setting forth the well
       settled standard of review that governs an appeal from
       a judgment granting a motion to dismiss on the ground
Page 6                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (43)

Full Text