Opinion
No. CV 03-0824948 S
April 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS
This is an action to recover damages from various defendants for their alleged interference with a purported exclusive recording contract between plaintiff Maxemus Entertainment, LLC ("Maxemus") and a performing artist, Natasha Ramos.
Defendants have filed separate motions to dismiss each dated December 12, 2003, claiming that Maxemus has no standing to sue because in a prior action in this court Josey v. George, CV 01-0810269, 2003 WL 231665 (January 9, 2003, Booth, J.), this court found that Maxemus had no contract with Ramos.
The numbered conclusions in the Josey case relied on by the defendants are as follows.
4. The defendants interfered with the Plaintiff's contracted rights concerning the artist L.A.B. 22 and Natasha Ramos.
6. Upon termination of the Limited Liability Company, the artists were contractually bound to the Plaintiff.
Defendants claim that these conclusions in the Josey case established that neither Maxemus nor its principal Tate George had a contract with Ramos as alleged in the present case.
In a second action in this court involving some of the same parties and somewhat related issues, Maxemus Entertainment LLC v. Josey, CV 03-082274, decided on September 9, 2003 ( 35 Conn. L. Rptr. 454, 2003 Conn. Super. Lexis 2250), Judge Hennessey concluded that because Maxemus and George were "in privity" the conclusions in Josey v. George were binding on Maxemus, and dismissed Maxemus complaint because the issues presented were decided in Josey v. George.
This court is not persuaded that the actions of this court in the two prior decisions have conclusively established that Maxemus had no contract with Ramos, so as to affect its standing to bring this action.
Defendants' basis for their motion to dismiss, whether characterized as claim preclusion or collateral estoppel is better asserted as a special defense. Practice Book § 10-50. The scope of the decisions in the prior two cases appears to require additional evidence to determine whether the contract being asserted in this case is the same contract allegedly precluded by the previous cases. The evidence offered in connection with these motions to dismiss does not impugn the jurisdiction of this court so as to justify the granting of the motions, particularly when the plaintiff in this case was not a party in Josey v. George, the main case in which the above-recited conclusions were reached.
Motion to dismiss denied.
Wagner, JTR