Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)

Citation
Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Parent Document
Michel v. Hartford, 226 Conn. App. 98 (2024)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
2024-06-11

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text

1,706 chars
(count six). All counts related to his allegations that he
         had been subjected to retaliation for ‘‘opposing racial
         discrimination’’ and providing truthful testimony in
         Cruz’ legal matters.
            On November 12, 2021, the defendant filed a motion
         to strike on the ground that the plaintiff had not suffi-
         ciently pleaded the claims set forth in his operative
         complaint5 and argued that the plaintiff’s claim for puni-
         tive damages failed because the defendant, as a matter
         of law, could not be liable for such damages. The plain-
         tiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the defendant’s
         motion to strike on January 18, 2022. On that same
         date, the trial court, Sheridan, J., held a hearing on the
         motion. At the beginning of the hearing, the plaintiff’s
         counsel conceded, as he had in his memorandum, that
         count six and the part of count three relying on article
         first, § 5, of the Connecticut constitution should be
         stricken. Nevertheless, he maintained that the plaintiff
         adequately pleaded facts sufficient to state causes of
         action in the remaining counts, including the part of
         count three relying on article first, § 4, of the Connecti-
         cut constitution, and argued that § 31-51q expressly
         authorizes punitive damages.
           On May 17, 2022, the court issued a memorandum of
         decision granting the motion to strike as to counts one,
         two, three, four, and five but denying the motion to
             The defendant also argued that the § 1983 claim set forth in count one
             5