Connecticut commercial litigators sometimes overlook an archaic civil procedure tool which can be used very successfully to obtain discovery of information before a company commits itself to what could be expensive litigation. We’ve used this procedure in employment cases, toxic tort cases and trade secret matters. And a recent Superior Court opinion validates this litigation strategy.
Unfair Trade Practice
On Tuesday the Connecticut Supreme Court heard arguments from the lawyers for some of the families suing Remington Arms over the marketing and sale of the gun that Adam Lanza used almost 5 years ago. I wrote about this case before here, and wrote about another Newtown case here, if you’re interested.
On the same day that the Connecticut Supreme Court announced an important unfair trade practice decision, read my comments about that decision here in the Connecticut Law Tribune, it announced another decision that received less attention but is just as important.
Under Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practice statute, CUTPA as its commonly known, parties are required to provide the Attorney General’s office with a copy of any complaint seeking relief under the statute. Until recently, lawyers had to mail a copy of the complaint, and allege they did so in the body of the complaint. Now, the Attorney General’s office accepts them electronically for faster review by the trade practice division to determine if the division wants to get involved.
An October 2012 article in the “Connecticut Law Tribune” titled, “Man’s Death In Romania Prompts Federal Lawsuit,” highlighted Tony Minchella’s deep experience litigating unfair trade practice claims. The magazine’s October 2012 article outlined a lawsuit concerning former Sacred Heart University basketball star, Chauncey Hardy, who was playing professionally in Romania, and was beaten to death in a Bucharest pub in 2011.