December 20, 2018.
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Waterbury, , Brazzel-Massaro, J.
M. Wisser, with whom, on the brief, was Sarah Black
Lingenheld, for the appellants (named defendant et al.).
D. Martin, with whom, on the brief, was Robert A. Ziegler,
for the appellee (plaintiff).
Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, DAuria, Mullins, Kahn
and Ecker, Js.[*]
Conn. 200] The plaintiff, Malkie Wiederman, commenced this
action arising out of a real estate investment agreement with
the defendants Issac Halpert and Marsha
Halpert, seeking, inter alia, to recover
damages for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, conversion, and
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
(CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. After the trial
court rendered a judgment of default against the defendants
for failing to appear at a trial management conference, it
held a hearing to determine damages. On the basis of the
evidence presented by the plaintiff at that hearing, at which
the defendants also failed to appear, the trial court awarded
the plaintiff $600,892.58 in compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys fees and costs. Thereafter, the
defendants moved to open the judgment rendered against them
and to enjoin the plaintiff from enforcing it. The trial
court, noting both that the defendants received multiple
notices to new [334 Conn. 201] and old addresses and that
Issac Halpert failed to appear and to testify at the hearing
on damages despite being personally served by subpoena,
denied their motion. The defendants then appealed from the
trial courts denial of their motion to open, claiming, inter
alia, that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the plaintiffs claims because the alleged injuries
sustained by her were derivative of the harm suffered by the
limited liability companies of which she and the defendants
were members, and, as such, the plaintiff lacked standing to
recover directly. See Wiederman v. Halpert, 178
Conn.App. 783, 793, 176 A.3d 1242 (2017). The Appellate Court
rejected the defendants claim, concluding that, because the
plaintiff sufficiently alleged an injury that was separate
and distinct from that suffered by the limited liability
companies — as she alleged, among other
things, that the defendants forged her signature on certain
financial documents — the trial court had properly
exercised subject matter jurisdiction over her direct claims.
See id., at 797-98, 176 A.3d 1242. We granted the
defendants petition for certification to appeal, limited to
the following issue: "Did the Appellate Court properly
uphold the determination of the trial court that the [334
Conn. 202] plaintiff had standing to sue?" Wiederman
v. Halpert, 328 Conn. 906, 177 A.3d 1161 (2018).
examining the entire record on appeal and considering the
briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined
that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on ...