John MOSBY et al.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NORWALK et al.
April 16, 2019
from the Superior Court, Judicial District of
Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Irene P. Jacobs, J.
Mosby, self-represented, the appellant (named plaintiff).
Jeffry Spahr, deputy corporation counsel, for the appellee
Walsh, Jr., for the appellee (defendant United Public Service
Bright and Beach, Js.
Conn.App. 282] The self-represented plaintiff, John
Mosby, appeals from the judgment of the trial
court rendered in favor of the defendants, the Board of
Education of the City of Norwalk (board), and United Public
Services Employees Union (union), following the granting of
the boards motion to dismiss and the unions motion for
summary judgment. On appeal, Mosby claims that the court
erred in (1) granting the motion to dismiss in favor of the
board on the ground of improper service of process, and (2)
granting the motion for summary judgment in favor of the
union on the ground that Mosby lacked standing to commence
this action against the union. We affirm the judgment of the
trial courts memorandum of decision granting the unions
motion for summary judgment sets forth the following relevant
and undisputed facts. "As custodians employed by the
[board], the plaintiffs were members of Local 1042 Council
#4, which negotiated Collective Bargaining Agreements with
the [board] in 1997, 2003, and 2011. At the time of [Mosbys]
retirement on November 5, 1999, he received medical benefits
as set forth in ... the 1997 Agreement....
"Five of the plaintiffs, who all retired between
February 9, 2009, and June 30, 2011, received retirement
benefits pursuant to the 2003 Agreement .... One of the
plaintiffs, who retired on June 30, 2012, received retirement
benefits pursuant to the 2011 Agreement. All of the
plaintiffs are currently receiving the coverage and benefits
to which they are entitled pursuant to the Agreements which
were in effect on the dates of their retirements.
Conn.App. 283] "Local 1042 Council #4 was decertified by
the Connecticut State Board of Labor Relations on August 26,
2015, and the defendant [union] was certified as the
exclusive representative of all custodians employed by the
board. The defendant [union] was not a party to the
negotiations or the resulting Agreements in 1997, 2003, or
plaintiffs complaint alleged that the board and the union
had breached a contract between them governing the
plaintiffs retirement health insurance benefits. On November
29, 2016, the board filed a motion to dismiss the action
against it for improper ...