Opinion
No. CV 06-5005224
June 12, 2007
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO STRIKE
The plaintiff's most recent complaint, filed on March 5, 2007, contains ten counts against the towns of West Hartford and Bloomfield and their health district employees, Daniel Sweeney and Steven Huleatt, arising out of an incident involving the plaintiff's alleged failure to remedy a public nuisance, resulting in the plaintiff's arrest and subsequent imprisonment on August 30, 2004. Count one alleges malicious prosecution against Sweeney. Count two, intentional infliction of emotional distress against Sweeney. Count three, negligent infliction of emotional distress against Sweeney. Counts four and five, a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sweeney and Huleatt respectively. Count Six, negligent supervision against Huleatt. Counts seven and nine seek indemnification from West Hartford and Bloomfield respectively pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-465. Counts eight and ten are brought against West Hartford and Bloomfield, respectively, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n.
The defendant West Hartford filed a motion to strike on April 4, 2007, claiming that (1) the plaintiff's Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-465 claim should be stricken in part because it seeks indemnification for wilful acts; (2) the plaintiff's Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557 claim should be stricken because it seeks indemnification for wilful acts; and (3) some of the claims against the defendants are barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity.
The defendant Town of Bloomfield filed an identical motion to strike on April 12, 2007.
In ruling on a motion to strike, the court is limited to considering the grounds specified in the motion. Meredith v. Police Commissioner, 182 Conn. 138, 140, 438 A.2d 27 (1980). Those grounds will be considered separately.
I. CT Page 10483
The motion to strike is denied in regard to the defendant's first claim because the only counts alleging § 7-465 claims are counts seven and nine and their incorporated counts, which fail to allege wilful acts. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-465(a).II.
The motion to strike is denied in regard to the plaintiff's second claim because the only counts alleging § 52-577n claims are counts eight and ten and their incorporated counts, counts three and five which allege negligent infliction of emotional distress and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 respectively, which are not wilful acts. See § 52-557n(a)(2)(A).
III.
The motion to strike in regard to the third claim, negligent supervision, alleged in counts seven and nine, is granted because such supervision is generally considered to be a discretionary act. See § 52-557n(a)(2)(B); Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority, 208 Conn. 161, 179, 544 A.2d 1185 (1988) (considerations of who to hire, how to train such people, and how to supervise employees are decisions requiring use of judgment and discretion). In addition, the "identifiable person-imminent harm" exception does not appear applicable in this case. See Purzycki v. Fairfield, 244 Conn. 101, 109-10, 708 A.2d 937 (1998) (imminent harm); Doe v. Petersen, 279 Conn. 607, 620-21, 903 A.2d 191 (2006) (identifiable victim).