Preview
DOCKET NO. HHB-CV16-6033492-S SUPERIOR COURT
ANGELO C. ALDI and J.D. OF NEW BRITAIN
MARK. T. JOHNSTON
VS. AT NEW BRITAIN
VIRGINA MORRONE, TRUSTEE, OCTOBER 24, 2016
FRANK A. MORRONE, JR., TRUSTEE,
RANDALL REALTORS - WATCH HILL, LLC, and
MARY KRUPINSKI
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-31, the plaintiffs’ file this supplemental Memorandum
of Law in Support of their Opposition to the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss - Forum Non-
Conveniens dated October 3, 2016 (Entry No. 134.00) for the following reasons:
FACTS
For purposes of the plaintiffs’ Supplemental Opposition to the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss —
Forum Non-Conveniens, the relevant facts are as follow:
1 The defendant, Randall Realtors - Watch Hill, LLC, is a Rhode Island limited liability
Company, and is one of eight members of “The Randall Family of Companies” which has four
offices in Rhode Island and the following three office in Connecticut: (1) the “Mystic Real Estate
Office” located at 22 Homes Street, Mystic, Connecticut 06355; (2) the “Norwich Real Estate
‘The Law Offices of
Office” located at 76 Salem Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360; and (3) the “East Lyme
MECCARIELLO
& BORNSTEIN
142 North Main St.
Real Estate Office” located at 15 Chesterfield Road, East Lyme, Connecticut 06333, as shown on
Southington, CT
06489
(860) 378-5938
Juris. No. 106142
“page 2 of 2” of the website: www.randallrealtors.com, a copy of which is attached to the
plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00), as Exhibit | and marked for identification as Exhibit 16 on the
plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00). In fact, the five real estate offices in Rhode
Island, including both the “Watch Hill Real Estate Office” and “Westerly Real Estate Office, and
the three real estate offices in Connecticut, including the now merged “Guilford Real Estate
Office”, are all owned and managed by the same two principals, Michael Schlott and H. Douglas
Randall, as shown on “Page 1 of 2” on the “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations -
Public Browse and Search” attached to as Exhibit 2 to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in
Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) and
marked as full Exhibit 17 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00) and on “Page 1 of
1” on the four “Business Inquiry” pages from the on-line “Concord /Public Inquiry” section of
the State of Connecticut, Secretary of the State - Commercial Recording Division” website also
attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other)
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) as Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, and as
full Exhibits 18, 19, 20 and 21 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00). And, in
addition to showcasing the multi-million dollar properties that it has sold and continues to offer
for sale in Connecticut, “The Randall Family of Companies” boasts that “/its] staff has earned a
reputation as one of the best in New England and most importantly, people have come to know
The Law Offices of [it] for [its] honesty and integrity” in on-line publication “Randall Realtors Real Living - Luxury
MECCARIELLO
& BORNSTEIN Real Estate Agents in Mystic/ Christie’s International Real Estate” attached to the plaintiffs’
142 North Main St.
Southington, CT Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
06489
(860) 378-5938 2.
Juris. No. 106142
(Entry No. 113.00) as Exhibit 7 and marked for identification as Exhibit 22 on the plaintiffs’ List
of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00). And, “The Randall Family of Companies” displays the names,
photographs and contact information of 75 Connecticut real estate agents located in the Mystic,
Norwich and East Lyme Offices on its website attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law
in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) as
E xhibits 8. 9 and 10, respectively, and marked for identification as Exhibit 22 on the plaintiffs’
List of Exhibits as Exhibits 22, 24 and 46 (Entry No. 142.00), respectively;
2. The defendant, Mary Krupinski, is real estate broker licensed in both Rhode Island
and Connecticut and is an agent with “The Randall Family of Companies”, according to her on-
line biography attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the
(other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) as Exhibit u and marked for
identification as Exhibit 25 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00);
3. On or about January 7, 2015, the defendant, Mary Krupinski, listed the real property
known as “17 Cove Road, Westerly Rhode Island” for sale on the State Wide Multiple Listing
Service of Rhode Island, Inc. (MLS), which listing was assigned the identification number of
“1094708”, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Entry
No. 102.00) and a full Exhibit 2 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00);
4. On or about July 5, 2015, the plaintiffs and the defendants, Virginia Morrone,
Trustee and Frank A. Morrone, Jr., Co-Trustees, entered into a written agreement for the
‘The Law Offices of purchase and sale of said property with the plaintiffs, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D to
MECCARIELLO
& BORNSTEIN the plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Entry No. 102.00) and a full Exhibit 5 on the plaintiffs’ List
142 North Main St.
Southington, CT of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00);
06489
(860) 378-5938
Juris. No. 106142
5 On or about July 30, 2015, the plaintiffs purchased said property from the
defendants, Virginia Morrone, Trustee and Frank A. Morrone, Jr., Co-Trustees, for the sum of
$350,000.00 in accordance with the terms and conditions of said written agreement in exchange
for a “Statutory Form Trustee’s Deed”, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit E to the plaintiffs’
amended complaint (Entry No. 102.00) and a full Exhibit 6 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits
(Entry No. 142.00). Incidentally, the defendants, Virginia Morrone, Trustee and Frank A.
Morrone, Jr., Co-Trustees, executed all of their closing documents in Harpswell, Maine, not
Westerly, Rhode Island, in contradiction to the sworn representations that they made in both their
initial affidavits and amended affidavits, copies of which are attached as Exhibits A and B to the
Memorandum of Law in Support of [their] Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 108.00) and as Exhibits
Aand B to [their] Amended Exhibits to Memorandum of Law in Support of [their] Motion to
Dismiss (Entry No. 109.00), respectively, and the sworn representations made by the defendant,
Mary Krupinski, the first cousin of the defendant, Frank Morrone, Jr., in her affidavit attached as
Exhibit B in the defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of [her] Motion to Dismiss -
Forum Non-Conveniens (Entry No. 132.00) and marked for identification as Exhibit 36 on the
plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00). And, the plaintiffs executed all of their closing
documents in Southington, Connecticut, not Westerly, Rhode Island, as confirmed by the
Statutory Form Mortgage Deed dated August 4, 2015 marked as full Exhibit 11 on the plaintiffs’
List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00) and also confirmed by both the plaintiffs and their closing
‘The Law Offices of attorney in the sworn affidavits filed as Entry Nos. 115, 116 and 117.00 and marked for
MECCARIELLO
& BORNSTEIN identification as Exhibits 27, 28 and 29 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00);
142 North Main St,
Southington, CT
06489
(860) 378-5938
Juris. No. 106142
6. The defendant, Mary Krupinski, as a real estate broker licensed by the State of
Connecticut, derives substantial revenues in the State of Connecticut as confirmed by her own
on-line biography attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to
the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) as Exhibit 11 and marked for
identification as Exhibit 25 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00), the Connecticut
Department of Consumer Protection license look-up attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of
Law in Support of their Reply to the (other) defendants’ Surreply to plaintiffs Opposition to the
(other) Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 122.00) as Exhibit 15 and marked as full Exhibit 32 on the
plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00) and her active listings as shown on the Randall
Realtors website and marked as Exhibit 40 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00);
7 The plaintiffs, Angelo C. Aldi and Mark T. Johnston, both permanently reside and
work in Southington, Connecticut, which is only a 15 minute drive (9.5 miles) from the New
Britain Superior Court located at 20 Franklin Square, New Britain, Connecticut. (Time/mileage
courtesy of www.maps.google.com). Incidentally, the defendants, Virginia Morrone, Trustee
and Frank A. Morrone, Jr., Co-Trustees, both permanently reside in Silver Springs, Maryland
which is a 6 hour and 12 minute drive (333 miles) to the New Britain Superior Court located at
20 Franklin Square, New Britain, Connecticut, but a 7 hour and 56 minute drive (389 miles) to
the Washington County Courthouse in Wakefield, Rhode Island. (time/mileage courtesy of
www.maps.google.com); and
‘The Law Offices of
MECCARIELLO-
& BORNSTEIN
142 North Main St.
Southington, CT
06489
(860) 378-5938
Juris, No. 106142
8 The plaintiffs’ (undersigned) counsel, who is not admitted to practice law in the
State of Rhode Island and would have to incur significant time and expense to apply Pro Hac
Vice, has his law office in Southington, Connecticut, which is also only a 15 minute drive (9.5
miles) from the New Britain Superior Court located at 20 Franklin Square, New Britain,
Connecticut, while the law firm for the defendants, Mary Krupinski and Randall Realtors-Watch
Hill, LLC, is licensed to practice law in 33 states and operate out of 16 offices across the
country, including both Connecticut and Rhode Island. (Time/mileage courtesy of
www.maps.google.com).
LAW
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court has the discretion to decide
"where the trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice." Union
Carbide Corporation v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 212 Conn. 311, 319 (1989). The court
should look to the balance of private and public interests as outlined in Gulf Oil Corporation v.
Gi ilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) when determining whether the chosen forum is inappropriate. Id.
319. However, “[u]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff's choice
of forum should rarely be disturbed.” Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, Id., 508.
The Connecticut Supreme Court in Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc., 215 Conn. 409
(1990) enunciated the standard that is to be used by the trial court in exercising its discretion by
holding that:
‘The Law Offices of "Emphasis on the trial court's discretion does not, however, overshadow the central
MECCARIELLO principle of the forum non conveniens doctrine that unless the balance is strongly in favor
& BORNSTEIN of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. Although
142 North Main St. it would be inappropriate to invoke rigid rule to govern discretion; it bears emphasis
Southington, CT that invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a drastic remedy; which
06489
(860) 378-5938 6-
Juris. No. 106142
the trial court must approach with caution and restraint. The trial court does not
have unchecked discretion to dismiss cases from a plaintiffs chosen forum simply
because another forum, in the court's view, may be superior to that chosen by the
plaintiff. Although a trial court applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens must
walk a delicate line to avoid implicitly sanctioning forum-shopping by either litigant at
the expense of the other; it cannot exercise its discretion in order to level the playing field
between the parties. The plaintiff's choice of forum, which may well have been chosen
precisely because it provides the plaintiff with certain procedural or substantive
advantages, should be respected unless equity weighs strongly in favor of the defendant.
The overriding inquiry in a forum non conveniens motion is not whether some other
forum might be good one, or even a better one than the plaintiffs chosen forum. The
question to be answered is whether the plaintiffs chosen forum is itself inappropriate or
unfair because of the various private and public interest considerations involved.
Accordingly, the trial court, in exercising its structured discretion, should place its
thumb firmly on the plaintiffs side of the scale, as a representation of the strong
presumption in favor of the plaintiffs chosen forum, before attempting to balance
the private and public interest factors relevant to a forum non conveniens motion."
Id., 500-502 (emphasis added).
The ultimate inquiry on whether the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens
should be applied is where the trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of
justice. Brown v. Brown, 195 Conn. 98, 108, 486 A.2d 1116, n. 17 (1985)(citing Koster v.
American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067
(1947)). The four step process for examining forum non conveniens as outlined in Gulf Oil
Corp. v. Gilbert was adopted by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Durkin v. Intevac, Inc., 258
Conn. 454 (2001). And, the application of that process by the Connecticut Superior Court
(Alander, J.) in Anderson v. Marriott Hotel (NNH-CV-99-0432587-S) and (Fischer, J .) in Mathis
Vv. . Marriott International, Inc., (NNH-CV14-6044292-S) resulted in the denial of similarly filed
motions to dismiss where Connecticut residents brought suit in Connecticut against defendants
The Law Offices of
from Hawaii and Florida, respectively.
MECCARIELLO
& BORNSTEIN
142 North Main St.
Southington, CT
06489
(860) 378-5938 -7-
Juris. No. 106142
ARGUMENT
There is absolutely no question that the defendants, Mary Krupinski and members of “The
Randall Family of Companies”, which includes the defendant, Randall Realtors - Watch Hill,
LLC, are all licensed to sell real estate in the State of Connecticut. There is also absolutely no
question that the defendants, Mary Krupinski and members of “The Randall Family of
Companies”, which includes the defendant, Randall Realtors - Watch Hill, LLC, “have
committed a tortious act outside [Connecticut] causing injury to [the plaintiffs] with the state [of
Connecticut] and “regularly do [and] solicit business, [and] engage in any other persistent course
of conduct, [and] derive substantial revenue from ... services rendered, in [Connecticut].”
(quoting C.G.S. Section 52-59b(a)(3)(A)). In fact, the unanswered allegations of
“Mistepresentation” and “CUPTA” in the Second and Third Counts of the plaintiffs’ amended /
complaint (respectively) both factually describe and statutorily define the “tortious acts”
committed in Rhode Island against these Connecticut residents. And, it is the totality of the facts
contained in both the unanswered allegations of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and their
affidavits which this Court must consider in the light most favorable to them. “When the motion
to dismiss does not seek to introduce facts outside of the record, it admits all well pleaded facts,
the complaint being construed most favorably to the plaintiff.”. Duguay v. Hopkins, 191 Conn.
222, 227, 464 A.2d. 45, 49 (1983). Besides, the defendants, Mary Krupinski and Randall
Realtors - Watch Hill, LLC, a member of “The Randall Family of Companies”, did not seek to
The Law Offices of introduce any undisputed facts outside of the record. Rather, they only chose to argue that it is
MECCARIELLO
& BORNSTEIN inconvenient for them to defend this action in Connecticut. Furthermore, it is very important to
142 North Main St.
Southington, CT
06489
(860) 378-5938 8.
Juris. No. 106142
point out that neither of them have filed any motion contesting this Court’s jurisdiction for any
reason, including “personal jurisdiction” or “improper venue”, and consequently, they have each
waived any procedural rights to do so. Connecticut Practice Book Sections 10-06, 10-07, 10-30
and 10-32.
The attached Memorandums of Decision issued by the Court (Alander, J.) in Anderson v.
Marriott Hotel and by the Court (Fischer, J.) in Mathis v. Marriott International, Inc. dismiss in
those cases each and every identical argument being made by the defendants in this case.
First, the plaintiffs concede that there is an alternative forum to adjudicate this matter, but
they do not concede that Rhode Island law provides the same or even more relief to consumers
injured by unfair trade practices. In fact, it provides less and quite frankly, would add insult to
the plaintiffs’ injury. Under Rhode Island law, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act only provides that “an individual consumer, who suffers any ascertainable loss of
money or property as a result of any deceptive practice used or engaged by another person, may
bring an action to recover actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater.” R.1. Gen. Laws,
Section 6-13.1-5.2. (emphasis added). In this action, the plaintiffs’ claim for actual or
“compensatory” damages for breach of contract is against all four defendants (i.e. the difference
between the five-bedroom, two-kitchen house they contracted to buy and the three-bedroom/one-
kitchen house they were sold). And, the plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or “treble” damages for
unfair trade practices is only against the defendants, Mary Krupinski and Randall Realtors -
The Law Offices of Watch Hill, LLC. In Connecticut, the Unfair Trade Practices Act “[CUTPA] does not provide a
MECCARIELLO
& BORNSTEIN method for determining punitive damages, courts generally award punitive in the amounts equal
142 North Main St.
Southington, CT
06489
(860) 378-5938 2
Juris. No. 106142
to actual damages or multiples of actual damages.” ' (emphasis added). Punitive damages,
however, may also be awarded where the plaintiff does not show the existence of actual damages
flowing from the CUTPA violation * or when the court awards only nominal damages. *
Additionally, a plaintiff need not plead or prove compensatory damages in order to recover
punitive damages under CUTPA. * In Rhode Island, the plaintiffs could only recover award
punitive damages in the amount equal to “actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater.” As
such, Rhode Island courts are not an adequate alternative forum for the plaintiffs in this case.
Second, the defendants have the burden to persuade the court that the chosen forum is
inconvenient to potential witnesses for their defense. Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc.,
supra, 215 Conn. 509. These defendant have not met that burden. “When a dismissal is premised
on the convenience of witnesses, more than a mere allegation to that effect is required. Rather,
the defendants must establish, with specificity, inconvenience to witnesses that is sufficiently
prejudicial to justify dismissal. A party seeking to transfer a case for the convenience of
witnesses must identify the key witnesses to be called and must make a general statement of
what their testimony will cover. The burden is upon [the defendants] to give the names and
locations of potential witnesses and the substance of their testimony. Sufficient information
* Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc., 79 Conn. App. 22, 34 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
2 Zelencich, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS at *21 (citing Larobina v. Home Depot, Inc., 76 Conn. App. 586, 598 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003); Tillquist v.
Ford Motor Credit Co., 714 F. Supp. 607, 617 (D. Conn. 1989).
7 See Emerald Investments, LLC v. Porter Bridge and Loan Co., No. 3:05-CV-1598, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45621, *26 (D. Conn. June 25, 2007).
‘The Law Offices of (stating that “a court may also award punitive damages and attorney's fees to a plaintiff who has been awarded only nominal damages resulting
from an unfair or deceptive practice under CUTPA."). When no compensatory damages are awarded, or when only nominal damages are
MECCARIELLO awarded, courts will disregard the typical standard of applying multipliers to the compensatory damages award and instead look to the deterrent
& BORNSTEIN effect when determining the punitive damages under CUTPA for nominal
142 North Main St.
compensatory amounts. See Bristol Technology, 114 F. Supp. 2d 59, 85 (D.Conn., 2000).
Southington, CT + Emerald Investments, 2007 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 45621, at *26.
16489
(860) 378-5938 ~10-
Juris. No. 106142
must be included in the affidavits to establish that the named witnesses are key witnesses who
need to be called and that their testimony is material.” Id., 509-510 (emphasis added). While the
defendants have identified potential witnesses for their defense to this action, they have not
provided the names of all their witnesses or any substance of their expected testimony or any
affidavits regarding their unwillingness to travel to Connecticut. * “The mere assertion that
witnesses are reside in Rhode Island is not adequate to tip the scales in the defendants’ favor on a
motion to dismiss for forum non convenien: Anderson v. Marriott Hotel, Memorandum of
Decision (Alander, J.) at Page 3 of 7. Furthermore, the defendants have not filed form JD-CL-53
claiming this case “for the inventory of jury cases” in accordance with Section 52-215 of the
Connecticut General Statutes. The individual assignment of this Court (Swienton, J.) has not
been changed. So, for the defendants to Suggest that “access to the property [sic] would be
extremely difficult for the jury in this case” is disingenuous. It is also disingenuous for them to
suggest that this Court is “ill-equipped to deliberate on the issues in this case involving a Rhode
Island real estate transaction” “will not be familiar with the Rhode Island law and forms that
will be discussed at length in this case.” “The mere fact that the court is called upon to determine
and apply foreign law does not present a legal problem of the sort which would justify the
dismissal of a case otherwise properly before it. Connecticut courts are quite capable of applying
foreign law when required to do so and it would be improper to invoke the doctrine of forum non
conveniens solely to avoid a choice of law analysis.” Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc.
The Law Offices of
MECCARIELLO
& BORNSTEIN 5 Schwartz v. Bitter End Yacht Club International, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-97-0398306-S (May
18,
1998, Zoarski, J.)(denying motion to dismiss on ground of forum non conveniens because no evidence was presented that witnesses were
142 North Main St. unwilling to travel, application of foreign law was not sufficient to invoke this doctrine, and defendant failed to demonstrate undue burden on
Southington, CT Connecticut courts).
06489
(860) 378-5938 1.
Juris. No. 106142
supra, 215 Conn. 502 at 512. As such, this Court is neither an inconvenient forum for the
defendants’ potential witnesses nor an inferior one to determine and apply either the statutory
and/or common law involved in this case.
Third, the defendants’ assertions that the public's interests argue for dismissal of this case
are not compelling enough for this Court to either “disturb” the plaintiffs’ choice of forum or
invoke such a “drastic remedy” against them. Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc., at 500-502.
The defendants claim that the Connecticut courts are congested, that both the citizens and the
courts of Rhode Island have a greater interest than the citizens and courts of Connecticut in
adjudicating this case and that it will place “an unwarranted imposition on the jurors chosen to
this case.” Again, the defendants have not claimed this case for a jury trial. More importantly,
they have not offered any evidence that the trial courts in Connecticut are any more congested
than the trial courts in Rhode Island. And, it is factually unknown whether this action involving,
inter alai, a claim of unfair trade practices, while very important to these Connecticut plaintiffs,
has any consuming interest to the citizens of Rhode Island. As such, the balance of the private
and public interests in this case fail to overcome the strong presumption of the appropriateness of
the home forum chosen by the plaintiffs.
Fourth (and last), the plaintiffs have never “initially indicated [any] intent to file suit in
Rhode Island.” The defendants made this same factually untrue and wholly misleading
statement in their (withdrawn) Motion for Extension of Time to Plead dated September 23, 2016
The Law Offices of (Entry No. 124.00). Again, the plaintiffs reside and work in Connecticut. And, since their
MECCARIELLO-
& BORNSTEIN (undersigned) counsel is not admitted to practice law in Rhode Island, he would be required to
142 North Main St,
Southington, CT incur significant time and expense for the admission of Pro Hac Vice if this case was dismissed,
06489
(860) 378-5938 12-
Juris. No. 106142
unlike the defendants that are licensed and work in Connecticut and their legal defense firm
which has 16 attorneys licensed to practice law in Connecticut and an office in Simsbury. As
such, Rhode Island would be an inconvenient forum to the plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss - Forum Non-Conveniens
must be denied.
PLAINTIFFS
By.
Bryan . Meccariello, Esq.
Their Attorney
CERTIFICATION
Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically mailed this 24" day of
October, 2016 to:
David A. Corbett, Esq. (corbett@litchfieldcavo.com)
82 Hopmeadow Street, Suite 210
Simsbury, Connecticut 06089
(Counsel of Record for defendants, Randall Realtors - Watch Hill, LLC and Mary Krupinski)
Tracy M. Collins, Esq. (tmcollins@wallersmithpalmer.com)
(Counsel of Records for the defendants, Virginia Morrone and Frank A. Morrone, Jr., Co-
Trustees, of the “Virginia Morrone Revocable Living Trust” dated July 24, 2006.
=
‘The Law Offices of Bryan F. Meccariello
MECCARIELLO Commissioner of the Superior Court
& BORNSTEIN
142 North Main St.
Southington, CT
06489
(860) 378-5938 13.
Juris, No. 106142
PAY A a LU, OUT VOT Lp bay LUUUY, 2 CL UT page ius
ANDERSON v. MARRIOTT HOTEL, No. CV99-04325875S (Apr. 11, 2000) * 27 CLR 69 (Conn
Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven
27 CLR 69 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000)
s ANDERSON V. MARRIOTT HOTEL, NO. p>
CV99-04325875S (APR. 11, 2000)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
ALANDER, JUDGE.
The plaintiff has filed the instant action claiming that she was injured due to the defendant's neg-
ligence while playing tennis as a guest at the defendant’s hotel on the Island of Kauai in the state
of Hawaii. The plaintiff resides in Connecticut and instituted the action here. The defendant has
moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that Connecticut is an inconvenient forum under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Specifically, the defendant asserts that Connecticut is an inappropriate forum for three reasons:
(2) the incident in question occurred in Hawaii and requires the testimony of witnesses who live
in Hawaii; (2) the defendant will be prevented from exercising its right to implead and seek ap-
portionment from third parties who are not subject to personal jurisdiction in Connecticut; and
(3) the public’s interest is better served if this matter is litigated in the Hawaii. The plaintiff ar-
gues that she has the right to choose the forum for the resolution of this dispute and the balance
of private and public interests at stake here does not warrant the court overriding that choice. For
the following reasons, the court agrees with the plaintiff. CT Page 4001
https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016
PMNIZLANOUN Ve IWEPININEU LE IU DL, INU. UV 9Y-U4 9298/9 (APY. 11, ZUUU), Z/ CLK OY... Page Z ot /
Under the doctrine eEOsN ARR GEIENSHS,BS, EYE dias kas Aiscretion,
ga oecide, Ophea Ean
trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” Union Carbide Corpo-
ration v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 212 Conn. 311, 319 (1989). The court should look to the bal-
ance of private and public interests outlined in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501
(/case/gulf-oil-corporation-v-gilbert) (1947) in determining whether the chosen forum is inappro-
priate. Id.
The Connecticut Supreme Court in Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc., 215 Conn. 409 (1990)
enunciated the standard that is to be used by the trial court in exercising its discretion. Emphasis
on the trial court's discretion does not, however, overshadow the central principle of the forum
non conveniens doctrine that unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the
plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. Although it would be inappropriate to in-
voke rigid rule to govern discretion; it bears emphasis that invocation of the doctrine of forum
non conveniens is a drastic remedy; which the trial court must approach with caution and re-
straint. The trial court does not have unchecked discretion to dismiss cases from a plaintiffs cho-
sen forum simply because another forum, in the court’s view, may be superior to that chosen by
the plaintiff. Although a trial court applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens must walk a
delicate line to avoid implicitly sanctioning forum-shopping by either litigant at the expense of
the other; it cannot exercise its discretion in order to level the playing field between the parties.
The plaintiffs choice of forum, which may well have been chosen precisely because it provides the
plaintiff with certain procedural or substantive advantages, should be respected unless equity
weighs strongly in favor of the defendant. The overriding inquiry in a forum non conveniens mo-
tion is not whether some other forum might be good one, or even a better one than the plaintiffs
chosen forum. The question to be answered is whether the plaintiffs chosen forum is itself inap-
propriate or unfair because of the various private and public interest considerations involved. Ac-
cordingly, the trial court, in exercising its structured discretion, should place its thumb firmly on
the plaintiffs side of the scale, as a representation of the strong presumption in favor of the plain-
tiffs chosen forum, before attempting to balance the private and public interest factors relevant to
a forum non conveniens motion.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 500-502.
CT Page 4002
https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016
AINVERSUIN V. MAKTUU LL HO LBL, NO. CV I9-U452987/5 (Apr. 11, ZUUU), 2/ CLE 09 ... Page 3 ot /
A review of the pRieRg3d PHRRRARSSSES
Ew Ave ead ag tiiea on, Of this guater INEEaERS ann
their measure falls to surmount the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiffs choice of forum.
The defendant argues that the private interests of the parties counsel for Hawaii as the most ap-
propriate forum because most of the witnesses live in Hawaii and they can not be compelled to
testify at any trial in Connecticut. The defendant asserts that, since the incident occurred in Ha-
waii, the majority of the witnesses who observed the incident and who can testify as to the
maintenance of the tennis court are located there. The defendant also claims that personnel from
a local hospital which treated the plaintiff following the accident would be necessary witnesses at
trial. The defendant complains that none of these witnesses can be compelled to testify at trial in
Connecticut. The plaintiff counters that two of most important witnesses, the plaintiff and her
husband, live in Connecticut and that the majority of the medical providers who treated the plain-
tiff for her injuries resulting from the accident are located here.
The defendant has the burden to persuade the court that the chosen forum is inconvenient to po-
tential witnesses for the defense. Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc., supra, 215 Conn. 509. The
defendant has not met that burden. “When a dismissal is premised on the convenience of witness-
es, more than a mere allegation to that effect is required. Rather, the defendants must establish,
with specificity, inconvenience to witnesses that is sufficiently prejudicial to justify dismissal. A
party seeking to transfer a case for the convenience of witnesses must identify the key witnesses
to be called and must make a general statement of what their testimony will cover. The burden is
upon it to give the names and locations of potential witnesses and the substance of their testimo-
ny. Sufficient information must be included in the affidavits to establish that the named witnesses
are key witnesses who need to be called and that their testimony is material.” (Citations and in-
ternal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 509-510. The defendant has not identified by name any wit-
nesses whom it believes possess testimony material to this action nor has it provided the sub-
stance of their expected testimony. The mere assertion that witnesses are irretrievably located in
Hawaii is not adequate to tip the scales in the defendant’s favor on a motion to dismiss for forum
non conveniens. CT Page 4003
https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016
AUNWLINOULY VMI Ld LU LL, INU. UV 99-U49290/9 (APE. 11, ZUUU), Z/ ULC OY. rage 4 or /
Moreover, modexn eshR SPE AARIGRE HEHE aC HRs. Geiss Shay Aertinnoyhis rene LALLY Lenn
due to the physical location of the Withess. "JUST aS Jet travel and Satellite communications have
significantly altered the meaning of “non conveniens’; so too has the advent of the videotaped
deposition greatly transformed the meaning of “compulsory process” in a forum non conveniens
calculus. Videotaped depositions frequently make corporeal transportation of foreign witnesses
unnecessary.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 511.
The same can be said for the defendant's claim that a view of the premises would be impossible
should the trial be held in Connecticut. The advent of videotape allows the premises to be
brought to the jury, in lieu of necessitating that the jury be CT Page 4006 brought to the prem-
ises.
The defendant further asserts that Connecticut is an inconvenient forum because it would be pre-
vented from exercising its right to implead and seek apportionment from others who may be lia-
ble for all or a portion of any damages awarded the plaintiff. The defendant asserts that the inci-
dent involving the plaintiff occurred on a tennis court that is owned by Kauai Lagoons Resort
Company and operated by Spa, Inc. The defendant claims that both of these entities are Hawaiian
corporations which do not conduct business in Connecticut and are not subject to personal juris-
diction in Connecticut. The defendant, therefore, would be precluded from seeking indemnifica-
tion or apportionment in this action from either of these two entities.
The defendant cites numerous court decisions which have viewed the inability of a defendant to
implead third parties to be an interest supporting dismissal on the grounds of forum non conven-
iens. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257-259 (/case/piper-aircraft-company-v-reyno-
hartzell-propeller-inc-v-reyno#p257) (1981); Fitzgerald _v. Texaco. Inc., 521 F.2d 448, 453
(/case/fitzgerald-v-texaco-inc##p453) (2d Cir. 1975); Waxman v. Weston Hotels Resorts, (1995 WL
242055 (S.D.N.Y.); Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 736 F. Sup. 662, 667 (W.D. Pa, 1990), rev’d on oth-
er grounds 932 F.2d 170 (/case/lacey-v-cessna-aircraft-co-7) (1991); Brown v. Blidberg Rothchild
Co., 222 F. Sup. 18, 19 (D. Del., 1963); Fletcher v. Exxon Shipping Co., 727 F. Sup. 1086 (C.D. Tex
1989); and Weinke v. Weinke, 467 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1983). I agree that the inability to implead other
potential wrongdoers is a factor that should be considered in determining whether the chosen fo-
rum is so inconvenient that the action should be dismissed. The inability to implead others be-
https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016
AINUEIOUIN V. MAKKIU LL HULEL, NO. CVIY-U45298/5 (Apr. 11, ZUUU), 2/ CLR OY ... Page 5 ot /
cause they are beyen ce EOS Ur AKRGA PCH ELIE AUS30g
EMS epant PADHINER RAMEE an
subsequent action for Contribution or indemnification should it be found tiable to the plamtitt.
The interest of judicial economy also counsels for one action, rather than two, wherever possible.
These interests of defendants and the courts however do not CT Page 4004 trump by themselves
the strong presumption favoring a plaintiffs choice of forum. In each of the cases cited by the de-
fendant, the inability of the defendant to implead others was simply one factor that the courts
considered when balancing the various private and public interests involved. See e.g. Piper Air-
raft Co. v. Reyno, supra, 454 U.S. 235 (/case/piper-aircraft-company-v-reyno-hartzell-propeller-
inc-v-reyno), in which the court upheld the District Court’s dismissal of the action on the grounds
of forum non conveniens because, in addition to the impleader bar, the plaintiffs were not resi-
dents of the chosen forum, evidentiary problems would be fewer in Scotland, and Scotland had a
strong interest in the litigation since the accident occurred in its airspace and all the decedents
were Scottish. The two Connecticut Superior Court decisions that I have found which have ad-
dressed the impleader issue have determined that dismissal on the grounds of forum non conven-
iens was not warranted even though the defendant was unable to implead other potential wrong-
doers. See’ Tilcon, Inc. v. First Union National Bank, judicial district of New Britain at New Britain,
No. CV98 489997 (Sept. 13, 1999) (Shortall, J.) and Howard v. Colony Ford Truck Center. Inc., ju-
dicial district of New Haven at New Haven, No. CV95-0376527 (Aug. 8, 1996) (Corradino, J.).
Moreover, in each of the cases advanced by the defendant save one, Weinke v. Weinke, 467
N.Y.S.2d 449 (1983), the court found, in part, the chosen forum to be inconvenient because it was
not the “home” jurisdiction of the plaintiff. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235
(/case/piper-aircraft-company-v-reyno-hartzell-propeller-inc-v-reyno) (1981) (the plaintiffs were
the estates of citizens of Scotland); Fitzgerald v. Texaco, Inc., 521 F.2d 448 (/case/fitzgerald-v-tex-
aco-inc) (2d Cir. 1975) (the plaintiffs were foreign corporations and the estate of deceased Ger-
man seamen); Waxman v. Weston Hotels Resorts (1995 WL 242055 (S.D.N.Y.) (the plaintiff was a
resident of New Jersey); Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 736 F. Sup. 662 (W.D. Pa, 1990) (the plain-
tiff was an Australian citizen working in Canada); Brown v. Blidberg Rothchild Co 222 F. Sup. 18
(D. Del., 1963) (the plaintiff was a resident of Alabama); and Fletcher v. Exxon Shipping Co., 727
https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016
AUNUINOUILN Vo IVIAININLU Eb IU 1, INU. UV 99-U4 9290/0 LAP. 11, 2UUU), 2/ LLIN UF. Faye vu /
F, Sup. 1086 (C-RvDERSSRY, MRAP
HG PAS ao. CURES TSTAED, Uolsopidely tagegpi¢ednn
that much less Judicial deference is due the plaintifis choice of a forum when the plaintiff is a
stranger to that forum. Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., supra, 215 Conn. 502.
The defendant's assertion that this action should be dismissed because of its inability to implead
others is further undercut by its failure to provide any factual support for its claim that it endeav-
ors to implead other potential wrongdoers. The defendant CT Page 4005 does not identify for the
court who might have done what wrong that warrants bringing them into this action. This court
has no way of determining whether the defendant's desire to implead others because of their
wrongdoing is anything more than wishful thinking. See Id., n. 8 (the court noted that the trial
court found that the defendants failed to indicate a sufficient factual basis for their claim that
they would have impleaded third parties, but for their preclusion in a Connecticut forum).
The defendant additionally asserts that the public’s interest argues for dismissal. It claims that the
Connecticut courts are c
Preview
DOCKET NO. HHB-CV16-6033492-S SUPERIOR COURT ANGELO C. ALDI and J.D. OF NEW BRITAIN MARK. T. JOHNSTON VS. AT NEW BRITAIN VIRGINA MORRONE, TRUSTEE, OCTOBER 24, 2016 FRANK A. MORRONE, JR., TRUSTEE, RANDALL REALTORS - WATCH HILL, LLC, and MARY KRUPINSKI PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-31, the plaintiffs’ file this supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of their Opposition to the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss - Forum Non- Conveniens dated October 3, 2016 (Entry No. 134.00) for the following reasons: FACTS For purposes of the plaintiffs’ Supplemental Opposition to the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss — Forum Non-Conveniens, the relevant facts are as follow: 1 The defendant, Randall Realtors - Watch Hill, LLC, is a Rhode Island limited liability Company, and is one of eight members of “The Randall Family of Companies” which has four offices in Rhode Island and the following three office in Connecticut: (1) the “Mystic Real Estate Office” located at 22 Homes Street, Mystic, Connecticut 06355; (2) the “Norwich Real Estate ‘The Law Offices of Office” located at 76 Salem Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360; and (3) the “East Lyme MECCARIELLO & BORNSTEIN 142 North Main St. Real Estate Office” located at 15 Chesterfield Road, East Lyme, Connecticut 06333, as shown on Southington, CT 06489 (860) 378-5938 Juris. No. 106142 “page 2 of 2” of the website: www.randallrealtors.com, a copy of which is attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00), as Exhibit | and marked for identification as Exhibit 16 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00). In fact, the five real estate offices in Rhode Island, including both the “Watch Hill Real Estate Office” and “Westerly Real Estate Office, and the three real estate offices in Connecticut, including the now merged “Guilford Real Estate Office”, are all owned and managed by the same two principals, Michael Schlott and H. Douglas Randall, as shown on “Page 1 of 2” on the “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations - Public Browse and Search” attached to as Exhibit 2 to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) and marked as full Exhibit 17 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00) and on “Page 1 of 1” on the four “Business Inquiry” pages from the on-line “Concord /Public Inquiry” section of the State of Connecticut, Secretary of the State - Commercial Recording Division” website also attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) as Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, and as full Exhibits 18, 19, 20 and 21 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00). And, in addition to showcasing the multi-million dollar properties that it has sold and continues to offer for sale in Connecticut, “The Randall Family of Companies” boasts that “/its] staff has earned a reputation as one of the best in New England and most importantly, people have come to know The Law Offices of [it] for [its] honesty and integrity” in on-line publication “Randall Realtors Real Living - Luxury MECCARIELLO & BORNSTEIN Real Estate Agents in Mystic/ Christie’s International Real Estate” attached to the plaintiffs’ 142 North Main St. Southington, CT Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 06489 (860) 378-5938 2. Juris. No. 106142 (Entry No. 113.00) as Exhibit 7 and marked for identification as Exhibit 22 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00). And, “The Randall Family of Companies” displays the names, photographs and contact information of 75 Connecticut real estate agents located in the Mystic, Norwich and East Lyme Offices on its website attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) as E xhibits 8. 9 and 10, respectively, and marked for identification as Exhibit 22 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits as Exhibits 22, 24 and 46 (Entry No. 142.00), respectively; 2. The defendant, Mary Krupinski, is real estate broker licensed in both Rhode Island and Connecticut and is an agent with “The Randall Family of Companies”, according to her on- line biography attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) as Exhibit u and marked for identification as Exhibit 25 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00); 3. On or about January 7, 2015, the defendant, Mary Krupinski, listed the real property known as “17 Cove Road, Westerly Rhode Island” for sale on the State Wide Multiple Listing Service of Rhode Island, Inc. (MLS), which listing was assigned the identification number of “1094708”, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Entry No. 102.00) and a full Exhibit 2 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00); 4. On or about July 5, 2015, the plaintiffs and the defendants, Virginia Morrone, Trustee and Frank A. Morrone, Jr., Co-Trustees, entered into a written agreement for the ‘The Law Offices of purchase and sale of said property with the plaintiffs, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D to MECCARIELLO & BORNSTEIN the plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Entry No. 102.00) and a full Exhibit 5 on the plaintiffs’ List 142 North Main St. Southington, CT of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00); 06489 (860) 378-5938 Juris. No. 106142 5 On or about July 30, 2015, the plaintiffs purchased said property from the defendants, Virginia Morrone, Trustee and Frank A. Morrone, Jr., Co-Trustees, for the sum of $350,000.00 in accordance with the terms and conditions of said written agreement in exchange for a “Statutory Form Trustee’s Deed”, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit E to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint (Entry No. 102.00) and a full Exhibit 6 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00). Incidentally, the defendants, Virginia Morrone, Trustee and Frank A. Morrone, Jr., Co-Trustees, executed all of their closing documents in Harpswell, Maine, not Westerly, Rhode Island, in contradiction to the sworn representations that they made in both their initial affidavits and amended affidavits, copies of which are attached as Exhibits A and B to the Memorandum of Law in Support of [their] Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 108.00) and as Exhibits Aand B to [their] Amended Exhibits to Memorandum of Law in Support of [their] Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 109.00), respectively, and the sworn representations made by the defendant, Mary Krupinski, the first cousin of the defendant, Frank Morrone, Jr., in her affidavit attached as Exhibit B in the defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of [her] Motion to Dismiss - Forum Non-Conveniens (Entry No. 132.00) and marked for identification as Exhibit 36 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00). And, the plaintiffs executed all of their closing documents in Southington, Connecticut, not Westerly, Rhode Island, as confirmed by the Statutory Form Mortgage Deed dated August 4, 2015 marked as full Exhibit 11 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00) and also confirmed by both the plaintiffs and their closing ‘The Law Offices of attorney in the sworn affidavits filed as Entry Nos. 115, 116 and 117.00 and marked for MECCARIELLO & BORNSTEIN identification as Exhibits 27, 28 and 29 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00); 142 North Main St, Southington, CT 06489 (860) 378-5938 Juris. No. 106142 6. The defendant, Mary Krupinski, as a real estate broker licensed by the State of Connecticut, derives substantial revenues in the State of Connecticut as confirmed by her own on-line biography attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support in Opposition to the (other) defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 113.00) as Exhibit 11 and marked for identification as Exhibit 25 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00), the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection license look-up attached to the plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Reply to the (other) defendants’ Surreply to plaintiffs Opposition to the (other) Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 122.00) as Exhibit 15 and marked as full Exhibit 32 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00) and her active listings as shown on the Randall Realtors website and marked as Exhibit 40 on the plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits (Entry No. 142.00); 7 The plaintiffs, Angelo C. Aldi and Mark T. Johnston, both permanently reside and work in Southington, Connecticut, which is only a 15 minute drive (9.5 miles) from the New Britain Superior Court located at 20 Franklin Square, New Britain, Connecticut. (Time/mileage courtesy of www.maps.google.com). Incidentally, the defendants, Virginia Morrone, Trustee and Frank A. Morrone, Jr., Co-Trustees, both permanently reside in Silver Springs, Maryland which is a 6 hour and 12 minute drive (333 miles) to the New Britain Superior Court located at 20 Franklin Square, New Britain, Connecticut, but a 7 hour and 56 minute drive (389 miles) to the Washington County Courthouse in Wakefield, Rhode Island. (time/mileage courtesy of www.maps.google.com); and ‘The Law Offices of MECCARIELLO- & BORNSTEIN 142 North Main St. Southington, CT 06489 (860) 378-5938 Juris, No. 106142 8 The plaintiffs’ (undersigned) counsel, who is not admitted to practice law in the State of Rhode Island and would have to incur significant time and expense to apply Pro Hac Vice, has his law office in Southington, Connecticut, which is also only a 15 minute drive (9.5 miles) from the New Britain Superior Court located at 20 Franklin Square, New Britain, Connecticut, while the law firm for the defendants, Mary Krupinski and Randall Realtors-Watch Hill, LLC, is licensed to practice law in 33 states and operate out of 16 offices across the country, including both Connecticut and Rhode Island. (Time/mileage courtesy of www.maps.google.com). LAW Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court has the discretion to decide "where the trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice." Union Carbide Corporation v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 212 Conn. 311, 319 (1989). The court should look to the balance of private and public interests as outlined in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gi ilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) when determining whether the chosen forum is inappropriate. Id. 319. However, “[u]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.” Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, Id., 508. The Connecticut Supreme Court in Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc., 215 Conn. 409 (1990) enunciated the standard that is to be used by the trial court in exercising its discretion by holding that: ‘The Law Offices of "Emphasis on the trial court's discretion does not, however, overshadow the central MECCARIELLO principle of the forum non conveniens doctrine that unless the balance is strongly in favor & BORNSTEIN of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. Although 142 North Main St. it would be inappropriate to invoke rigid rule to govern discretion; it bears emphasis Southington, CT that invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a drastic remedy; which 06489 (860) 378-5938 6- Juris. No. 106142 the trial court must approach with caution and restraint. The trial court does not have unchecked discretion to dismiss cases from a plaintiffs chosen forum simply because another forum, in the court's view, may be superior to that chosen by the plaintiff. Although a trial court applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens must walk a delicate line to avoid implicitly sanctioning forum-shopping by either litigant at the expense of the other; it cannot exercise its discretion in order to level the playing field between the parties. The plaintiff's choice of forum, which may well have been chosen precisely because it provides the plaintiff with certain procedural or substantive advantages, should be respected unless equity weighs strongly in favor of the defendant. The overriding inquiry in a forum non conveniens motion is not whether some other forum might be good one, or even a better one than the plaintiffs chosen forum. The question to be answered is whether the plaintiffs chosen forum is itself inappropriate or unfair because of the various private and public interest considerations involved. Accordingly, the trial court, in exercising its structured discretion, should place its thumb firmly on the plaintiffs side of the scale, as a representation of the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiffs chosen forum, before attempting to balance the private and public interest factors relevant to a forum non conveniens motion." Id., 500-502 (emphasis added). The ultimate inquiry on whether the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens should be applied is where the trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. Brown v. Brown, 195 Conn. 98, 108, 486 A.2d 1116, n. 17 (1985)(citing Koster v. American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947)). The four step process for examining forum non conveniens as outlined in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert was adopted by the Connecticut Supreme Court in Durkin v. Intevac, Inc., 258 Conn. 454 (2001). And, the application of that process by the Connecticut Superior Court (Alander, J.) in Anderson v. Marriott Hotel (NNH-CV-99-0432587-S) and (Fischer, J .) in Mathis Vv. . Marriott International, Inc., (NNH-CV14-6044292-S) resulted in the denial of similarly filed motions to dismiss where Connecticut residents brought suit in Connecticut against defendants The Law Offices of from Hawaii and Florida, respectively. MECCARIELLO & BORNSTEIN 142 North Main St. Southington, CT 06489 (860) 378-5938 -7- Juris. No. 106142 ARGUMENT There is absolutely no question that the defendants, Mary Krupinski and members of “The Randall Family of Companies”, which includes the defendant, Randall Realtors - Watch Hill, LLC, are all licensed to sell real estate in the State of Connecticut. There is also absolutely no question that the defendants, Mary Krupinski and members of “The Randall Family of Companies”, which includes the defendant, Randall Realtors - Watch Hill, LLC, “have committed a tortious act outside [Connecticut] causing injury to [the plaintiffs] with the state [of Connecticut] and “regularly do [and] solicit business, [and] engage in any other persistent course of conduct, [and] derive substantial revenue from ... services rendered, in [Connecticut].” (quoting C.G.S. Section 52-59b(a)(3)(A)). In fact, the unanswered allegations of “Mistepresentation” and “CUPTA” in the Second and Third Counts of the plaintiffs’ amended / complaint (respectively) both factually describe and statutorily define the “tortious acts” committed in Rhode Island against these Connecticut residents. And, it is the totality of the facts contained in both the unanswered allegations of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and their affidavits which this Court must consider in the light most favorable to them. “When the motion to dismiss does not seek to introduce facts outside of the record, it admits all well pleaded facts, the complaint being construed most favorably to the plaintiff.”. Duguay v. Hopkins, 191 Conn. 222, 227, 464 A.2d. 45, 49 (1983). Besides, the defendants, Mary Krupinski and Randall Realtors - Watch Hill, LLC, a member of “The Randall Family of Companies”, did not seek to The Law Offices of introduce any undisputed facts outside of the record. Rather, they only chose to argue that it is MECCARIELLO & BORNSTEIN inconvenient for them to defend this action in Connecticut. Furthermore, it is very important to 142 North Main St. Southington, CT 06489 (860) 378-5938 8. Juris. No. 106142 point out that neither of them have filed any motion contesting this Court’s jurisdiction for any reason, including “personal jurisdiction” or “improper venue”, and consequently, they have each waived any procedural rights to do so. Connecticut Practice Book Sections 10-06, 10-07, 10-30 and 10-32. The attached Memorandums of Decision issued by the Court (Alander, J.) in Anderson v. Marriott Hotel and by the Court (Fischer, J.) in Mathis v. Marriott International, Inc. dismiss in those cases each and every identical argument being made by the defendants in this case. First, the plaintiffs concede that there is an alternative forum to adjudicate this matter, but they do not concede that Rhode Island law provides the same or even more relief to consumers injured by unfair trade practices. In fact, it provides less and quite frankly, would add insult to the plaintiffs’ injury. Under Rhode Island law, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act only provides that “an individual consumer, who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of any deceptive practice used or engaged by another person, may bring an action to recover actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater.” R.1. Gen. Laws, Section 6-13.1-5.2. (emphasis added). In this action, the plaintiffs’ claim for actual or “compensatory” damages for breach of contract is against all four defendants (i.e. the difference between the five-bedroom, two-kitchen house they contracted to buy and the three-bedroom/one- kitchen house they were sold). And, the plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or “treble” damages for unfair trade practices is only against the defendants, Mary Krupinski and Randall Realtors - The Law Offices of Watch Hill, LLC. In Connecticut, the Unfair Trade Practices Act “[CUTPA] does not provide a MECCARIELLO & BORNSTEIN method for determining punitive damages, courts generally award punitive in the amounts equal 142 North Main St. Southington, CT 06489 (860) 378-5938 2 Juris. No. 106142 to actual damages or multiples of actual damages.” ' (emphasis added). Punitive damages, however, may also be awarded where the plaintiff does not show the existence of actual damages flowing from the CUTPA violation * or when the court awards only nominal damages. * Additionally, a plaintiff need not plead or prove compensatory damages in order to recover punitive damages under CUTPA. * In Rhode Island, the plaintiffs could only recover award punitive damages in the amount equal to “actual damages or $200.00, whichever is greater.” As such, Rhode Island courts are not an adequate alternative forum for the plaintiffs in this case. Second, the defendants have the burden to persuade the court that the chosen forum is inconvenient to potential witnesses for their defense. Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc., supra, 215 Conn. 509. These defendant have not met that burden. “When a dismissal is premised on the convenience of witnesses, more than a mere allegation to that effect is required. Rather, the defendants must establish, with specificity, inconvenience to witnesses that is sufficiently prejudicial to justify dismissal. A party seeking to transfer a case for the convenience of witnesses must identify the key witnesses to be called and must make a general statement of what their testimony will cover. The burden is upon [the defendants] to give the names and locations of potential witnesses and the substance of their testimony. Sufficient information * Advanced Financial Services, Inc. v. Associated Appraisal Services, Inc., 79 Conn. App. 22, 34 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). 2 Zelencich, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS at *21 (citing Larobina v. Home Depot, Inc., 76 Conn. App. 586, 598 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003); Tillquist v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 714 F. Supp. 607, 617 (D. Conn. 1989). 7 See Emerald Investments, LLC v. Porter Bridge and Loan Co., No. 3:05-CV-1598, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45621, *26 (D. Conn. June 25, 2007). ‘The Law Offices of (stating that “a court may also award punitive damages and attorney's fees to a plaintiff who has been awarded only nominal damages resulting from an unfair or deceptive practice under CUTPA."). When no compensatory damages are awarded, or when only nominal damages are MECCARIELLO awarded, courts will disregard the typical standard of applying multipliers to the compensatory damages award and instead look to the deterrent & BORNSTEIN effect when determining the punitive damages under CUTPA for nominal 142 North Main St. compensatory amounts. See Bristol Technology, 114 F. Supp. 2d 59, 85 (D.Conn., 2000). Southington, CT + Emerald Investments, 2007 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 45621, at *26. 16489 (860) 378-5938 ~10- Juris. No. 106142 must be included in the affidavits to establish that the named witnesses are key witnesses who need to be called and that their testimony is material.” Id., 509-510 (emphasis added). While the defendants have identified potential witnesses for their defense to this action, they have not provided the names of all their witnesses or any substance of their expected testimony or any affidavits regarding their unwillingness to travel to Connecticut. * “The mere assertion that witnesses are reside in Rhode Island is not adequate to tip the scales in the defendants’ favor on a motion to dismiss for forum non convenien: Anderson v. Marriott Hotel, Memorandum of Decision (Alander, J.) at Page 3 of 7. Furthermore, the defendants have not filed form JD-CL-53 claiming this case “for the inventory of jury cases” in accordance with Section 52-215 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The individual assignment of this Court (Swienton, J.) has not been changed. So, for the defendants to Suggest that “access to the property [sic] would be extremely difficult for the jury in this case” is disingenuous. It is also disingenuous for them to suggest that this Court is “ill-equipped to deliberate on the issues in this case involving a Rhode Island real estate transaction” “will not be familiar with the Rhode Island law and forms that will be discussed at length in this case.” “The mere fact that the court is called upon to determine and apply foreign law does not present a legal problem of the sort which would justify the dismissal of a case otherwise properly before it. Connecticut courts are quite capable of applying foreign law when required to do so and it would be improper to invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens solely to avoid a choice of law analysis.” Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. The Law Offices of MECCARIELLO & BORNSTEIN 5 Schwartz v. Bitter End Yacht Club International, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-97-0398306-S (May 18, 1998, Zoarski, J.)(denying motion to dismiss on ground of forum non conveniens because no evidence was presented that witnesses were 142 North Main St. unwilling to travel, application of foreign law was not sufficient to invoke this doctrine, and defendant failed to demonstrate undue burden on Southington, CT Connecticut courts). 06489 (860) 378-5938 1. Juris. No. 106142 supra, 215 Conn. 502 at 512. As such, this Court is neither an inconvenient forum for the defendants’ potential witnesses nor an inferior one to determine and apply either the statutory and/or common law involved in this case. Third, the defendants’ assertions that the public's interests argue for dismissal of this case are not compelling enough for this Court to either “disturb” the plaintiffs’ choice of forum or invoke such a “drastic remedy” against them. Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc., at 500-502. The defendants claim that the Connecticut courts are congested, that both the citizens and the courts of Rhode Island have a greater interest than the citizens and courts of Connecticut in adjudicating this case and that it will place “an unwarranted imposition on the jurors chosen to this case.” Again, the defendants have not claimed this case for a jury trial. More importantly, they have not offered any evidence that the trial courts in Connecticut are any more congested than the trial courts in Rhode Island. And, it is factually unknown whether this action involving, inter alai, a claim of unfair trade practices, while very important to these Connecticut plaintiffs, has any consuming interest to the citizens of Rhode Island. As such, the balance of the private and public interests in this case fail to overcome the strong presumption of the appropriateness of the home forum chosen by the plaintiffs. Fourth (and last), the plaintiffs have never “initially indicated [any] intent to file suit in Rhode Island.” The defendants made this same factually untrue and wholly misleading statement in their (withdrawn) Motion for Extension of Time to Plead dated September 23, 2016 The Law Offices of (Entry No. 124.00). Again, the plaintiffs reside and work in Connecticut. And, since their MECCARIELLO- & BORNSTEIN (undersigned) counsel is not admitted to practice law in Rhode Island, he would be required to 142 North Main St, Southington, CT incur significant time and expense for the admission of Pro Hac Vice if this case was dismissed, 06489 (860) 378-5938 12- Juris. No. 106142 unlike the defendants that are licensed and work in Connecticut and their legal defense firm which has 16 attorneys licensed to practice law in Connecticut and an office in Simsbury. As such, Rhode Island would be an inconvenient forum to the plaintiffs. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss - Forum Non-Conveniens must be denied. PLAINTIFFS By. Bryan . Meccariello, Esq. Their Attorney CERTIFICATION Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically mailed this 24" day of October, 2016 to: David A. Corbett, Esq. (corbett@litchfieldcavo.com) 82 Hopmeadow Street, Suite 210 Simsbury, Connecticut 06089 (Counsel of Record for defendants, Randall Realtors - Watch Hill, LLC and Mary Krupinski) Tracy M. Collins, Esq. (tmcollins@wallersmithpalmer.com) (Counsel of Records for the defendants, Virginia Morrone and Frank A. Morrone, Jr., Co- Trustees, of the “Virginia Morrone Revocable Living Trust” dated July 24, 2006. = ‘The Law Offices of Bryan F. Meccariello MECCARIELLO Commissioner of the Superior Court & BORNSTEIN 142 North Main St. Southington, CT 06489 (860) 378-5938 13. Juris, No. 106142 PAY A a LU, OUT VOT Lp bay LUUUY, 2 CL UT page ius ANDERSON v. MARRIOTT HOTEL, No. CV99-04325875S (Apr. 11, 2000) * 27 CLR 69 (Conn Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven 27 CLR 69 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000) s ANDERSON V. MARRIOTT HOTEL, NO. p> CV99-04325875S (APR. 11, 2000) MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ALANDER, JUDGE. The plaintiff has filed the instant action claiming that she was injured due to the defendant's neg- ligence while playing tennis as a guest at the defendant’s hotel on the Island of Kauai in the state of Hawaii. The plaintiff resides in Connecticut and instituted the action here. The defendant has moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that Connecticut is an inconvenient forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Specifically, the defendant asserts that Connecticut is an inappropriate forum for three reasons: (2) the incident in question occurred in Hawaii and requires the testimony of witnesses who live in Hawaii; (2) the defendant will be prevented from exercising its right to implead and seek ap- portionment from third parties who are not subject to personal jurisdiction in Connecticut; and (3) the public’s interest is better served if this matter is litigated in the Hawaii. The plaintiff ar- gues that she has the right to choose the forum for the resolution of this dispute and the balance of private and public interests at stake here does not warrant the court overriding that choice. For the following reasons, the court agrees with the plaintiff. CT Page 4001 https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016 PMNIZLANOUN Ve IWEPININEU LE IU DL, INU. UV 9Y-U4 9298/9 (APY. 11, ZUUU), Z/ CLK OY... Page Z ot / Under the doctrine eEOsN ARR GEIENSHS,BS, EYE dias kas Aiscretion, ga oecide, Ophea Ean trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” Union Carbide Corpo- ration v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 212 Conn. 311, 319 (1989). The court should look to the bal- ance of private and public interests outlined in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (/case/gulf-oil-corporation-v-gilbert) (1947) in determining whether the chosen forum is inappro- priate. Id. The Connecticut Supreme Court in Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc., 215 Conn. 409 (1990) enunciated the standard that is to be used by the trial court in exercising its discretion. Emphasis on the trial court's discretion does not, however, overshadow the central principle of the forum non conveniens doctrine that unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. Although it would be inappropriate to in- voke rigid rule to govern discretion; it bears emphasis that invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a drastic remedy; which the trial court must approach with caution and re- straint. The trial court does not have unchecked discretion to dismiss cases from a plaintiffs cho- sen forum simply because another forum, in the court’s view, may be superior to that chosen by the plaintiff. Although a trial court applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens must walk a delicate line to avoid implicitly sanctioning forum-shopping by either litigant at the expense of the other; it cannot exercise its discretion in order to level the playing field between the parties. The plaintiffs choice of forum, which may well have been chosen precisely because it provides the plaintiff with certain procedural or substantive advantages, should be respected unless equity weighs strongly in favor of the defendant. The overriding inquiry in a forum non conveniens mo- tion is not whether some other forum might be good one, or even a better one than the plaintiffs chosen forum. The question to be answered is whether the plaintiffs chosen forum is itself inap- propriate or unfair because of the various private and public interest considerations involved. Ac- cordingly, the trial court, in exercising its structured discretion, should place its thumb firmly on the plaintiffs side of the scale, as a representation of the strong presumption in favor of the plain- tiffs chosen forum, before attempting to balance the private and public interest factors relevant to a forum non conveniens motion.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 500-502. CT Page 4002 https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016 AINVERSUIN V. MAKTUU LL HO LBL, NO. CV I9-U452987/5 (Apr. 11, ZUUU), 2/ CLE 09 ... Page 3 ot / A review of the pRieRg3d PHRRRARSSSES Ew Ave ead ag tiiea on, Of this guater INEEaERS ann their measure falls to surmount the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiffs choice of forum. The defendant argues that the private interests of the parties counsel for Hawaii as the most ap- propriate forum because most of the witnesses live in Hawaii and they can not be compelled to testify at any trial in Connecticut. The defendant asserts that, since the incident occurred in Ha- waii, the majority of the witnesses who observed the incident and who can testify as to the maintenance of the tennis court are located there. The defendant also claims that personnel from a local hospital which treated the plaintiff following the accident would be necessary witnesses at trial. The defendant complains that none of these witnesses can be compelled to testify at trial in Connecticut. The plaintiff counters that two of most important witnesses, the plaintiff and her husband, live in Connecticut and that the majority of the medical providers who treated the plain- tiff for her injuries resulting from the accident are located here. The defendant has the burden to persuade the court that the chosen forum is inconvenient to po- tential witnesses for the defense. Picketts v. International Playtex. Inc., supra, 215 Conn. 509. The defendant has not met that burden. “When a dismissal is premised on the convenience of witness- es, more than a mere allegation to that effect is required. Rather, the defendants must establish, with specificity, inconvenience to witnesses that is sufficiently prejudicial to justify dismissal. A party seeking to transfer a case for the convenience of witnesses must identify the key witnesses to be called and must make a general statement of what their testimony will cover. The burden is upon it to give the names and locations of potential witnesses and the substance of their testimo- ny. Sufficient information must be included in the affidavits to establish that the named witnesses are key witnesses who need to be called and that their testimony is material.” (Citations and in- ternal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 509-510. The defendant has not identified by name any wit- nesses whom it believes possess testimony material to this action nor has it provided the sub- stance of their expected testimony. The mere assertion that witnesses are irretrievably located in Hawaii is not adequate to tip the scales in the defendant’s favor on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. CT Page 4003 https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016 AUNWLINOULY VMI Ld LU LL, INU. UV 99-U49290/9 (APE. 11, ZUUU), Z/ ULC OY. rage 4 or / Moreover, modexn eshR SPE AARIGRE HEHE aC HRs. Geiss Shay Aertinnoyhis rene LALLY Lenn due to the physical location of the Withess. "JUST aS Jet travel and Satellite communications have significantly altered the meaning of “non conveniens’; so too has the advent of the videotaped deposition greatly transformed the meaning of “compulsory process” in a forum non conveniens calculus. Videotaped depositions frequently make corporeal transportation of foreign witnesses unnecessary.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 511. The same can be said for the defendant's claim that a view of the premises would be impossible should the trial be held in Connecticut. The advent of videotape allows the premises to be brought to the jury, in lieu of necessitating that the jury be CT Page 4006 brought to the prem- ises. The defendant further asserts that Connecticut is an inconvenient forum because it would be pre- vented from exercising its right to implead and seek apportionment from others who may be lia- ble for all or a portion of any damages awarded the plaintiff. The defendant asserts that the inci- dent involving the plaintiff occurred on a tennis court that is owned by Kauai Lagoons Resort Company and operated by Spa, Inc. The defendant claims that both of these entities are Hawaiian corporations which do not conduct business in Connecticut and are not subject to personal juris- diction in Connecticut. The defendant, therefore, would be precluded from seeking indemnifica- tion or apportionment in this action from either of these two entities. The defendant cites numerous court decisions which have viewed the inability of a defendant to implead third parties to be an interest supporting dismissal on the grounds of forum non conven- iens. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257-259 (/case/piper-aircraft-company-v-reyno- hartzell-propeller-inc-v-reyno#p257) (1981); Fitzgerald _v. Texaco. Inc., 521 F.2d 448, 453 (/case/fitzgerald-v-texaco-inc##p453) (2d Cir. 1975); Waxman v. Weston Hotels Resorts, (1995 WL 242055 (S.D.N.Y.); Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 736 F. Sup. 662, 667 (W.D. Pa, 1990), rev’d on oth- er grounds 932 F.2d 170 (/case/lacey-v-cessna-aircraft-co-7) (1991); Brown v. Blidberg Rothchild Co., 222 F. Sup. 18, 19 (D. Del., 1963); Fletcher v. Exxon Shipping Co., 727 F. Sup. 1086 (C.D. Tex 1989); and Weinke v. Weinke, 467 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1983). I agree that the inability to implead other potential wrongdoers is a factor that should be considered in determining whether the chosen fo- rum is so inconvenient that the action should be dismissed. The inability to implead others be- https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016 AINUEIOUIN V. MAKKIU LL HULEL, NO. CVIY-U45298/5 (Apr. 11, ZUUU), 2/ CLR OY ... Page 5 ot / cause they are beyen ce EOS Ur AKRGA PCH ELIE AUS30g EMS epant PADHINER RAMEE an subsequent action for Contribution or indemnification should it be found tiable to the plamtitt. The interest of judicial economy also counsels for one action, rather than two, wherever possible. These interests of defendants and the courts however do not CT Page 4004 trump by themselves the strong presumption favoring a plaintiffs choice of forum. In each of the cases cited by the de- fendant, the inability of the defendant to implead others was simply one factor that the courts considered when balancing the various private and public interests involved. See e.g. Piper Air- raft Co. v. Reyno, supra, 454 U.S. 235 (/case/piper-aircraft-company-v-reyno-hartzell-propeller- inc-v-reyno), in which the court upheld the District Court’s dismissal of the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens because, in addition to the impleader bar, the plaintiffs were not resi- dents of the chosen forum, evidentiary problems would be fewer in Scotland, and Scotland had a strong interest in the litigation since the accident occurred in its airspace and all the decedents were Scottish. The two Connecticut Superior Court decisions that I have found which have ad- dressed the impleader issue have determined that dismissal on the grounds of forum non conven- iens was not warranted even though the defendant was unable to implead other potential wrong- doers. See’ Tilcon, Inc. v. First Union National Bank, judicial district of New Britain at New Britain, No. CV98 489997 (Sept. 13, 1999) (Shortall, J.) and Howard v. Colony Ford Truck Center. Inc., ju- dicial district of New Haven at New Haven, No. CV95-0376527 (Aug. 8, 1996) (Corradino, J.). Moreover, in each of the cases advanced by the defendant save one, Weinke v. Weinke, 467 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1983), the court found, in part, the chosen forum to be inconvenient because it was not the “home” jurisdiction of the plaintiff. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (/case/piper-aircraft-company-v-reyno-hartzell-propeller-inc-v-reyno) (1981) (the plaintiffs were the estates of citizens of Scotland); Fitzgerald v. Texaco, Inc., 521 F.2d 448 (/case/fitzgerald-v-tex- aco-inc) (2d Cir. 1975) (the plaintiffs were foreign corporations and the estate of deceased Ger- man seamen); Waxman v. Weston Hotels Resorts (1995 WL 242055 (S.D.N.Y.) (the plaintiff was a resident of New Jersey); Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 736 F. Sup. 662 (W.D. Pa, 1990) (the plain- tiff was an Australian citizen working in Canada); Brown v. Blidberg Rothchild Co 222 F. Sup. 18 (D. Del., 1963) (the plaintiff was a resident of Alabama); and Fletcher v. Exxon Shipping Co., 727 https://casetext.com/case/anderson-v-marriott-hotel-no-cv99-0432587s-apr 10/24/2016 AUNUINOUILN Vo IVIAININLU Eb IU 1, INU. UV 99-U4 9290/0 LAP. 11, 2UUU), 2/ LLIN UF. Faye vu / F, Sup. 1086 (C-RvDERSSRY, MRAP HG PAS ao. CURES TSTAED, Uolsopidely tagegpi¢ednn that much less Judicial deference is due the plaintifis choice of a forum when the plaintiff is a stranger to that forum. Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., supra, 215 Conn. 502. The defendant's assertion that this action should be dismissed because of its inability to implead others is further undercut by its failure to provide any factual support for its claim that it endeav- ors to implead other potential wrongdoers. The defendant CT Page 4005 does not identify for the court who might have done what wrong that warrants bringing them into this action. This court has no way of determining whether the defendant's desire to implead others because of their wrongdoing is anything more than wishful thinking. See Id., n. 8 (the court noted that the trial court found that the defendants failed to indicate a sufficient factual basis for their claim that they would have impleaded third parties, but for their preclusion in a Connecticut forum). The defendant additionally asserts that the public’s interest argues for dismissal. It claims that the Connecticut courts are c