On June 09, 2020 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Deutsche Bank Ag,
and
Alexander Vik,
Caroline Vik,
for T90 - Torts - All other
in the District Court of Fairfield County.
Preview
DOCKET NO. FST-CV20-6047029-S : SUPERIOR COURT
DEUTSCHE BANK AG, : J.D. OF STAMFORD-
PLAINTIFF, NORWALK
VS. :
AT STAMFORD
:
CAROLINE VIK, ET AL, : OCTOBER 22, 2020
Defendant.
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE PRIOR PENDING ACTION
Pursuant to the relevant decisional law and the Court’s inherent authority, the
defendants, Alexander Vik and Caroline Vik (“the Viks”), hereby submit this Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to the prior pending action. As set forth in more detail in the attached
Memorandum of Law, the Bank has already availed itself of the Norway court with the
same claims that it makes before this Court, in a matter that is currently pending in
Norway. The Norwegian matter began on December 23, 2019 and was followed up with
a petition for securing evidence on May 19, 2020. This Connecticut case was filed on
June 9, 2020. There can be no reason for the Bank’s decision to file this second, virtually
identical, action here in Connecticut, except to oppress and vex the Viks. See Bayer v.
Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381, 395–96 (2009) (“there cannot be any reason or
necessity for bringing the second [action], and, therefore, it must be oppressive and
vexatious.”). This type of gamesmanship should not be countenanced. Connecticut is not
the proper forum for this case, and the Court should dismiss it.
WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their
motion to dismiss pursuant to the prior pending action, and enter such other and further
relief as the Court deems fair and equitable.
THE DEFENDANTS
CAROLINE VIK AND ALEXANDER VIK
By: /s/ Monte E. Frank
Monte E. Frank
Adam S. Mocciolo
Johanna S. Katz
Julie V. Pinette
Pullman & Comley, LLC
850 Main Street P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
Juris No. 47892
Telephone 203 330 2000
Facsimile 203 576 8888
Their Attorneys
2
CERTIFICATION
I certify that a copy of the above was or will immediately be mailed or delivered
electronically or non-electronically on October 22, 2020, to all counsel and self-
represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received
from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were or will immediately be
electronically served.
Day Pitney LLP
One Stamford Plaza
263 Tresser Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901-13236
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
32 Old Slip
New York, NY 10005
David G. Januszewski, Esq.
PHV Brian T. Markley
PHV Sheila C. Ramesh
/s/ Monte E. Frank
Monte E. Frank
3
ACTIVE/81751.1/JKATZ/9113581v1
Document Filed Date
October 22, 2020
Case Filing Date
June 09, 2020
Category
T90 - Torts - All other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
DOCKET NO. FST-CV20-6047029-S : SUPERIOR COURT DEUTSCHE BANK AG, : J.D. OF STAMFORD- PLAINTIFF, NORWALK VS. : AT STAMFORD : CAROLINE VIK, ET AL, : OCTOBER 22, 2020 Defendant. MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO THE PRIOR PENDING ACTION Pursuant to the relevant decisional law and the Court’s inherent authority, the defendants, Alexander Vik and Caroline Vik (“the Viks”), hereby submit this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the prior pending action. As set forth in more detail in the attached Memorandum of Law, the Bank has already availed itself of the Norway court with the same claims that it makes before this Court, in a matter that is currently pending in Norway. The Norwegian matter began on December 23, 2019 and was followed up with a petition for securing evidence on May 19, 2020. This Connecticut case was filed on June 9, 2020. There can be no reason for the Bank’s decision to file this second, virtually identical, action here in Connecticut, except to oppress and vex the Viks. See Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc., 292 Conn. 381, 395–96 (2009) (“there cannot be any reason or necessity for bringing the second [action], and, therefore, it must be oppressive and vexatious.”). This type of gamesmanship should not be countenanced. Connecticut is not the proper forum for this case, and the Court should dismiss it. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that this Court grant their motion to dismiss pursuant to the prior pending action, and enter such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and equitable. THE DEFENDANTS CAROLINE VIK AND ALEXANDER VIK By: /s/ Monte E. Frank Monte E. Frank Adam S. Mocciolo Johanna S. Katz Julie V. Pinette Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006 Juris No. 47892 Telephone 203 330 2000 Facsimile 203 576 8888 Their Attorneys 2 CERTIFICATION I certify that a copy of the above was or will immediately be mailed or delivered electronically or non-electronically on October 22, 2020, to all counsel and self- represented parties of record and that written consent for electronic delivery was received from all counsel and self-represented parties of record who were or will immediately be electronically served. Day Pitney LLP One Stamford Plaza 263 Tresser Boulevard Stamford, CT 06901-13236 Cahill Gordon & Reindel 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 David G. Januszewski, Esq. PHV Brian T. Markley PHV Sheila C. Ramesh /s/ Monte E. Frank Monte E. Frank 3 ACTIVE/81751.1/JKATZ/9113581v1