Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

. ` Fa c 2 of 3
Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC Document 32-11 Filed 05/24/2004 Page 1 0f§
. ifzwijiaiwz
Not Reported in A.2d Page 1
(Cite as: 2882 WL 31304810 (C0m1.Supm·.)) .
W "cxtrcmc and c>u*qage0us" conduct, which is a
Only TQh€ W€STi&W <3iC&TiO1'k is CL!1‘§'€1'1‘¢Z}y B.V2LHE1§§é. thrgghgfd efement fgy imjgnijggal infligtign Of
emotional distress. ATS0, thc defendant contends
ihat thc plaintiffs fail to allege that the defendant
UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT intrudcd upon matters 01* a highly pcrsunaf nature as
RULES BEFORE CITING. n required t0 sustain an action for invasion of privacy
by intrusion. The plaintiffs disagree: arguing that
. they have sufficiently picadcé the cicmems of each
cause of action. The court agrees with the plaintiffs
Superior Court 0fC0n¤ecticut. as to their intentional infiicticm of emotional distress
ciaim, but disagrees with them as t0 their invasion
Geraldine BENTON, at al., 0f privacy by intrusion claim.
v.
Gary SIMPSON.
FN}. The plaintiffs do not oppose the
Nc. CV01385675S. _ dcfendazws mation to strike their invasion
of privacy by false light ciaim and their
`Scpt. 18,2002. ucgiigcnt iniiictiun of emotional distress
ciaim. In their memorandum in opposition
to the cicfe:ncEant's motion to strike, the
plaintiffs claim there is not enough
RUSH, 3. evidence to show pubiicaticn outside of
the company for the false light ciaim.
*1 The piaintiffs in this matter are Geraldine Further, with regard to their claim of
Benton, Pat Bucmirzc-cutra, Kim `Cifatte, Debra negligent infiicticn 0f emotional distress,
Ccscntinc and Donna Moore, current and farmer the plaintiffs cite to Pemdeau v. Harzfvrci
employees of Pitney Bowes. The defendant is Gary 259 Coma. 729, 792. A.2ci 752 (2002), and
Simpson, the p1ai¤tiffs' farmer manager. The its holding that a negligent inflicticn 0f
plaintiffs allege that while the defendant was their emotional distress ciaim will appiy only to
manager he subjected them to, inter alia: violent conduct in the termination 0f an employee,
rages ihat put the plaintiffs in péxysicai fear 0f him which is not alleged hcrcl Therefore, tha
necessitating the placement of security guards court wilicnmsidcr these claims abandoned.
outside thc office, outrageously nasty ami
condescending remarks made t0 thc plaintiffs in the
presence cf others, bouts of screaming and cursing, The elements for intentional inflictiau of emotional
and thc physical restraint of one of the plaintiffs. distress arc: "(I) that the actor intended to inflict
The piaintiffs assert that the defendant's actions emotional distress or that he knew Of shuuici have
have caused them pain and suffering, La., hear: known that emotional distress was the likely result
problems and depression necessitating the use of cf his conduct; (2) that the conduct was extreme and
_ medication. outrageous; (3) that thc dc-:fenéam’s conduct was thc
cause of the piaintiffs distress; and (4) thai the
The defendant argues that the plaintifz? complaint cmotianai distress sustained by the phintiff was
is devoid of factual allegations that, if proven, severe Whether :1 dcfcndanfs conduct is
would satisfy the elements of their claims for sufficient t0 satisfy ibm: requirement that it bc:
intentional infliciion of emotional distress and extreme and outrageous is initially for the court to
invasion of privacy by intrusion. [FN1} Specifically, determine Only where reasanabic minds disagree
the defendant argues that there arc no aliagations docs it became an issue for the jury ." (Citations
sufficient to establish that ihc defendant engaged in omitted; interna? quotation marks omitted.)
‘ Ccpr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
http://print.wcst1aw.c0n1/delivery.ht1n1?dcst=atp&ds=.taid=B00558000009E25EO0O·¢f=548837... 5/21/2604

. Pa e 3 0f 3
Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC Document 32-1 1 Filed 05/24/2004 Page 2 of 5
Not Reported in A.2d Page 2
(Cite as: 2002 WL 31304810 (Conn.Super.))
`Appigfgn v_ Bggyd gfjjdugqfjgn gfStg}qf]gg·fO]g’ 254 has 'il'1H`LIdBd éI`&tO Z1 QYEVEIIC p13CC Of O$h€I‘WiSC
Conn. 205, 210, 757 A.2d 1059 (ZGGO). "There is invaded a private seclusion sha'; thc Plaintiff has
no bright line: ru}c to éatcminc what constitutes thmwn about his person or affairs} ]d." Bcmmma v. .
extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to Dm pgyidm Chew-gig; Superior Court, judicial
maintain an action. The court locks to specific facts district of Ansonia/Milford at Milford, Docket N0.
and circumstances of each case: in making its 066603 {February 4, 2000, Nadeau, 3.) (26 Conn. L.
dc-:cisi0n." Martin v. Bridgepcri Hospital, Superior Rpts.368)
Court, judicial district of Fairiécld at Bridgeport,
Docket N0. 356084 (February 11, 1999, Mclvilie, The piaintiffs do not allege any facts sufficient 1:0
I). support T§1€i1‘ invasion 0f privacy by intrusion claim.
The plaintiffs complaint stems from 2 workplace
The plaintiffs submit an af§davit as pm": of the situation and HO ailegaiians of an invasion of the
complaint, signed by nil the plaintiffs, containing plaintiffs scciusicn or private affairs is contained
the allegations relied upon in sustaining their claim within the compiaint cr affidavit. Therefore, thc
of intentional infiiction of cmcticnai distress. The court finds that thc alicgaticms in the piaintiffs}
plaintiffs alicgc in their affidavit that the defendant complaint and affidavit are insufficient to establish
subjected them to violent rages, condescending the elements of an invasion of privacy by in’n·usi0n
remarks and physical restraint. Although, the ciaim.
plain1iffs’ affidavit which forms the basis of the
plaintiffs complaint is phrased, in part, in terms of Accordingly, the Motion to Strike the First count of
hearsay evidence cr characterization, it is sufficient the First Amended and Revised Complaint is denied
to withstand a motion to strike. and granted as to the remaining counts.
*2 "The Connecticut Supreme Court has 2002 WL3I3048i€} (C0nn.Supcr.)
recognized a cause of action for invasion of privacy
and has adopted four categories as écfined in § END OF DOCUMENT _
652A 0f the Restatement (Second) of Torts The
four categories of invasion 0f pyivacy arc: (a)
unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of
another; (b) appropriation of the 0th21·'s name 0: ‘
likeness; {c) unreassmabic publicity given 20 the .
0thcr's private life; or (d) publicity that
unreasonably places thc other in a false iighi before
thc pu'¤;>1ic." (Citations omitted; internal quotation
marks omitted.) Galiagher v. Rapapvrz, Superior
Court, judicial district of Stamfcrdfbioznwalk at
Stamford, Docket N0. 149891 (May 6, 1997,
D‘Andr<~:a, J.) (19 Conn. L. Rptr. 474).
"The Connecticut Appellate Courts have yet to
interpret what constitutes an invasion of privacy
under the first category: an unreasonable intrusion
upon thc seclusion of another. Comments to thc
section of the Restatement adopted by tiqc Supreme
Court in Goodrich, however, state that *011:-: who .
intentionally intsudcs physically or otherwise, upon
the solitude or seclusion of another 01* his private
affairs cr concerns, is subject to liability to thc other
for invasion of privacy, if thc intrusion would be
highly offensive to 21 reasonable person} 3
Restatement (Second) 0f Torts, § 6523 (E97'7). As
way af further illustration, the Comments also state
that invasion of privacy occurs when the defendant
Copr. © West 2004 N0 Claim to Orig. U.S. Govi. Works
http://pri11t.WcstlaW.com/delivery.htmE?dcs1=atp&dataid=BGG5580000001251000-4-548837... 5/21/2004