public interest requirement in Connecticut

1996No. 84-486, §§ 2, 4, and now provides, in § 42-110g (a), "[p]roof of interest or public injury shall not be required in any action brought under this section." "The public interest requirement of a private action under CUTPA was . . . eliminated by the legislature." Rotophone, Inc. v. Danbury Hospital, 13 Conn. App. 230 , 233 , 535 A.2d 830 (1988).

1996No. 84-486, §§ 2, 4, and now provides, in § 42-110g (a), "[p]roof of interest or public injury shall not be required in any action brought under this section." "The public interest requirement of a private action under CUTPA was . . . eliminated by the legislature." Rotophone, Inc. v. Danbury Hospital, 13 Conn. App. 230 , 233 , 535 A.2d 830 (1988).

1994Union Carbide v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co. , 212 Conn. 311 , 319 , 562 A.2d 15 (1989).

1992The court in Miller went on to enumerate the interest factors as they were set forth in Gulf Oil, supra, which the Connecticut Supreme Court cited with authority in their holding in Union Carbide, supra. The public interest factors include: (1) administrative difficulties for the court, i.e., court congestion and the court's familiarity with the applicable law; (2) imposing the burden of jury duty on people of a community with no relation to the litigation; (3) holding trial in view of interested persons; and (4) having matters decided in their local forum.

1991Lembo v. Schlesinger, 15 Conn. App. 150 , 155 (1988).

1990Lembo v. Schlesinger, 15 Conn. App. 150 , 155 (1988).

1990"The public interest requirement of a private action under CUTPA has been eliminated. . . ." Fortini v. New England Log Homes, Inc., 4 Conn. App. 132 , 137 n. 1 (1985); see also Gibbs, 651 F. Sup. 1419 (D.

1988Fortini v. New England Log Homes, Inc., 4 Conn. App. 132 , 137 n.1, 492 A.2d 545 (1985). 5 Therefore, the trial court did not err in holding that in order to succeed on a CUTPA action commenced prior to June 8, 1984, as this case was, a plaintiff must demonstrate a nexus with the public interest.

1990Co., 40 Conn. Sup. 336 , 337-40 , 499 A.2d 81 (1985), held that the amendment eliminating the public interest requirement could be retroactively applied.

1990Co., 40 Conn. Sup. 336 , 337-40 , 499 A.2d 81 (1985), held that the amendment eliminating the public interest requirement could be retroactively applied.

1990Plaintiff also challenges defendants' first and third counts of their counterclaim on the ground that the CUTPA claims do not assert any public interest that is "specific and substantial." In support of their position that the defendants must satisfy the public interest requirement the plaintiff cites Ivey, Barnum O'Mara v. Indian Harbor Properties, Inc., 190 Conn. 528 (1983).

1988The plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred (1) in holding that the plaintiffs’ CUTPA claim is subject to the public interest requirement set forth in Ivey, Barnum & O’Mar a v. Indian Harbor Properties, Inc., 190 Conn. 528 , 461 A.2d 1369 (1983), (2) in concluding that the defendant’s answering service was limited to its own medical staff, 3 and (3) in holding that the plaintiffs did not state a cause of action on their claim of tortious interference with a business expectancy.

2003In support of his motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the defendant argues that "[t]he choice of forum of Connecticut is inappropriate and unfair based on relevant private and public interest considerations involved in this matter . . ." (Defendant's Memorandum, p. 3.) Then, rather than applying the "four step process" as discussed above, the defendant recites the test used to determine "the reasonableness of [personal] jurisdiction" 1 followed by the Supreme Court in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court , 480 U.S. 102 , 113 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987), an

2003In support of his motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the defendant argues that "[t]he choice of forum of Connecticut is inappropriate and unfair based on relevant private and public interest considerations involved in this matter . . ." (Defendant's Memorandum, p. 3.) Then, rather than applying the "four step process" as discussed above, the defendant recites the test used to determine "the reasonableness of [personal] jurisdiction" 1 followed by the Supreme Court in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court , 480 U.S. 102 , 113 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987), an

2003Finally, if the public interest factors tip the balance in favor of trying the case in the foreign forum, the court must . . . ensure that [the] plaintiffs can reinstate their [action] in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2003In support of his motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the defendant argues that "[t]he choice of forum of Connecticut is inappropriate and unfair based on relevant private and public interest considerations involved in this matter . . ." (Defendant's Memorandum, p. 3.) Then, rather than applying the "four step process" as discussed above, the defendant recites the test used to determine "the reasonableness of [personal] jurisdiction" 1 followed by the Supreme Court in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court , 480 U.S. 102 , 113 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987), an

2003In support of his motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the defendant argues that "[t]he choice of forum of Connecticut is inappropriate and unfair based on relevant private and public interest considerations involved in this matter . . ." (Defendant's Memorandum, p. 3.) Then, rather than applying the "four step process" as discussed above, the defendant recites the test used to determine "the reasonableness of [personal] jurisdiction" 1 followed by the Supreme Court in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court , 480 U.S. 102 , 113 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 , 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987), an

2000See Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. , supra, 215 Conn. 501 ("The trial court does not have `unchecked discretion to dismiss cases from a plaintiffs chosen forum simply because another forum, in the court's view, may be superior CT Page 9210 to that chosen by the plaintiff.'"); Miller v. United Technologies Corp. , supra, 40 Conn. Sup. 467 (holding Connecticut appropriate forum even when public interest factors favored foreign forum).

1992The court in Miller went on to enumerate the interest factors as they were set forth in Gulf Oil, supra, which the Connecticut Supreme Court cited with authority in their holding in Union Carbide, supra. The public interest factors include: (1) administrative difficulties for the court, i.e., court congestion and the court's familiarity with the applicable law; (2) imposing the burden of jury duty on people of a community with no relation to the litigation; (3) holding trial in view of interested persons; and (4) having matters decided in their local forum.

1982Since the court had no occasion to consider this issue under the facts presented, the actual malice standard still applied under the public interest analysis announced in Hill , despite the rejection of this principle in the libel area. 22 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, 346 (rejecting public interest test of Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S. Ct. 1811 , 29 L.

1982Since the court had no occasion to consider this issue under the facts presented, the actual malice standard still applied under the public interest analysis announced in Hill , despite the rejection of this principle in the libel area. 22 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, 346 (rejecting public interest test of Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 , 91 S. Ct. 1811 , 29 L.