Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Strano v. Azzinaro

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

March 5, 2019

JOHN STRANO ET AL.
v.
DARWYN AZZINARO ET AL.

          Argued October 17, 2018

         Procedural History

         Action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex, where the court, Domnarski, J., granted the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs' revised complaint; thereafter, the court granted the defendants' motion for judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed.

          John R. Williams, for the appellants (plaintiffs).

          Stephen P. Brown, with whom, on the brief, was Nicole R. Cuglietto, for the appellees (defendants).

          Sheldon, Elgo and Beach, Js.

          OPINION

          BEACH, J.

         The plaintiffs, John Strano and Rider Strano, appeal from the judgment of the trial court rendered after its decision striking their claims sounding in intentional infliction of emotional distress, which claims were brought against the defendants, Darwyn Azzinaro, in his official capacity as Essex Boy Scouts Troop 12 Committee Chairman, and the Boy Scouts of America Corporation. The plaintiffs claim that their revised complaint alleged facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct toward them. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.[1]

         The following facts and procedural history are pertinent to our decision. The original complaint was brought by John Strano on his own behalf and as the father and next friend of his minor son. The plaintiffs alleged, in relevant part, that the minor plaintiff, a scout in the Essex Boy Scouts Troop 12, had been bullied by a fellow scout. After John Strano requested that Azzinaro and other adult troop leaders intervene to stop the bullying and John Strano attended troop meetings to monitor his son's treatment, Azzinaro sent John Strano a letter notifying him that the minor plaintiff was no longer permitted to attend troop meetings or events, because John Strano's presence at troop meetings disrupted the group's functioning.[2]

         The defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that the defendants had engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct. The court granted the motion to strike, concluding that no reasonable fact finder could find that the defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous.

         The plaintiffs filed a revised complaint, in which they pleaded additional facts in support of their claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The revised complaint added that the minor plaintiff had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, which diagnosis qualified him for an Individual Education Plan pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., and that the defendants were aware that the minor plaintiff required educational accommodations. The revised complaint also described several instances in which a fellow scout had bullied the minor plaintiff, as well as remedial actions that the alleged bully's parents and the defendants had taken in response to the bullying.

         The defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs' revised complaint on the ground that it, like the original complaint, failed to plead facts sufficient to allege that the defendants had engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct toward them. The court granted the defendants' motion. The plaintiffs did not file a new pleading within the time allotted in Practice Book § 10-44. The defendants filed a motion for judgment, which the court granted. This appeal followed.

         The plaintiffs claim that the court erroneously determined that no reasonable fact finder could find that the defendants' alleged conduct had been extreme and outrageous and, therefore, erred in striking their revised complaint. We disagree.

         ‘‘The standard of review for granting a motion to strike is well settled. In an appeal from a judgment following the granting of a motion to strike, we must take as true the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint and must construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency. . . . A motion to strike admits all facts well pleaded. . . . A determination regarding the legal sufficiency of a claim is, therefore, a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact. Accordingly, our review is plenary. . . . If facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied. . . . Moreover, we note that [w]hat is necessarily implied ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.