From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howes v. Hasampour

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
Mar 23, 2010
2010 Ct. Sup. 7358 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)

Opinion

No. CV09-5025841 S

March 23, 2010


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE


The defendants, Reza Hashampour and Vianix Delaware, LLC have moved to strike counts I, II and II of the complaint filed by the plaintiffs, Simon Howes and Nuance Communication, Inc. on the ground that Connecticut's choice of law rules warrant the application of Virginia law to the defendants' conduct, and therefore all three counts are insufficient as a matter of law. It is the opinion of the Court that Connecticut law is applicable to the defendants' conduct and that, under Connecticut law, the plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to state claims under § 52-570d and for invasion of privacy.

Counts I and III allege a violation of General Statutes § 52-570d. Count II alleges an invasion of privacy.

Although the defendants raise additional grounds in subsequent pleadings, because these grounds are not stated in the motion to strike, the court will not consider them. See Gazo v. Stamford, 255 Conn. 245, 259, 765 A.2d 505 (2001).

The court agrees with the plaintiffs that the Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws § 152, entitled "Right of Privacy," guides the choice of law analysis. See Lord v. Lord, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV 01 0380279 (August 20, 2002, Gallagher, J.) ( 33 Conn. L. Rptr. 88, 91-92); Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 229 Conn. 359, 373 n. 14, 641 A.2d 783 (1994) (considering § 146 of the Restatement, entitled "Personal Injuries," in deciding a choice of law question resulting from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident). Pursuant to § 152, Connecticut law will apply to the present case, as the place where the invasion of privacy occurred, in light of the allegations of the complaint, was Connecticut. Under § 6 of the restatement, the court cannot conclude that Virginia has a more significant relationship to the case than Connecticut. Therefore Connecticut law will apply to the present case. The plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to state a claim under § 52-570d. A cause of action for invasion of privacy is recognized in Connecticut; Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107, 125-28, 438 A.2d 1317 (1982); and the plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to state a prima facie claim for invasion of privacy under the test established by the 3 Restatement (Second) Torts § 652(b). See Garces v. R K Spero Co., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV 09 5025895S (May 29, 2009, Thompson, J.); WVIT, Inc. v. Gray, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. 95 0547689 (October 8, 1997, Aurigemma, J.) ( 20 Conn. L. Rptr. 526, 527). Accordingly, the defendants' motion to strike counts I, II and III of the complaint is denied.


Summaries of

Howes v. Hasampour

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport
Mar 23, 2010
2010 Ct. Sup. 7358 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)
Case details for

Howes v. Hasampour

Case Details

Full title:SIMON HOWES ET AL. v. REZA HASAMPOUR ET AL

Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport

Date published: Mar 23, 2010

Citations

2010 Ct. Sup. 7358 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)