From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Doe v. Lenarz

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
Mar 12, 2008
2008 Ct. Sup. 4139 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2008)

Opinion

No. CV 05-4012970-S

March 12, 2008


ARTICULATION


The counterclaim defendants, John Doe and Jane Doe, move to strike the first and second counts of the counterclaim complaint filed by the counterclaim plaintiff, East-West Karate CT, LLC and Clayton McNally and Elizabeth McNally, the principals of East-West Karate CT, LLC. The counterclaim complaint has two counts. The first count alleges tortuous interference with a business relationship. Count 2 alleges defamation.

The essential elements of the tort of unlawful interference with a business relationship are; (1) a business relationship between the plaintiff and another party; (2) the defendants intentionally interfering with it while knowing of the relationship and; (3) as a result of the interference the plaintiffs suffering actual loss. Dinaopli v. Cooke, 43 Conn.App. 419 page 426. An essential element of the claim of tortuous interference with a business relationship is proof that the defendant engaged in intentional wrongful conduct. Par Painting, Inc. v. Greenhorne et al, 61 Conn.App. 317.

In the opinion of this court the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to support the element of intent to interfere with a business relationship, viewing the facts in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency. In Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corporation, 47 Conn.App. 764 (1998) the court stated "the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts of improper motive or means to support a cause of action for tortuous interference."

Tortuous interference with a business must be based on an underlying tort involving improper motive or means. Lake v. Levy, 191 Conn. 257, 261 (1983). Counterclaim plaintiffs have failed to plead an improper motive or improper means.

In the second count the counterclaim plaintiffs have alleged defamation. To establish a prima facie case of defamation the plaintiff must demonstrate; (1) the defendant published a defamatory statement; (2) the defamatory statement identified the plaintiff to a third person; (3) the defamatory statement was published to a third person; (4) the plaintiff's reputation suffered injury as a result of the statement. Gagnon v. Housatonic Valley Tourism District Commission, 92 Conn.App. 835, 846 (2005). Counterclaim plaintiff has failed to state any defamatory statement that was made by the counterclaim defendant. In claiming defamation, "certainty is required in the allegations as to the defamation and as to the person defamed; a complaint for defamation must, on its face, specifically identify what allegedly defamatory statements were, by whom, and to whom. A complaint is insufficient . . . where, other than the bare allegation that the defendant's action caused injury to plaintiff's reputation, the complaint set forth no facts of any kind indicating what defamatory statements, if any, were made, when they were made, or to whom they may have been made." Forgione v. Bette, 2005 WA 1545278 (Conn.Sup. 2005). To "sufficiently state a claim for defamation the specific statements, the exact words, must be alleged." Pro Performance Corporate Services, Inc. v. Goldman, Superior Court Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No.: CV 01-0186618 (August 25, 2003, Lewis, JTR.)

The motion is granted as to both count one and count two.


Summaries of

Doe v. Lenarz

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
Mar 12, 2008
2008 Ct. Sup. 4139 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2008)
Case details for

Doe v. Lenarz

Case Details

Full title:JOHN DOE ET AL. v. PATRICK LENARZ ET AL

Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford

Date published: Mar 12, 2008

Citations

2008 Ct. Sup. 4139 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2008)