Opinion
No. CV05-4011860-S
February 16, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE #109
The plaintiff, Charlene DeBlasi, brings this action individually and on behalf of her minor son, David DeBlasi. The defendant has moved to strike counts one and four of the revised complaint which counts seek to allege a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress as to each plaintiff.
Essentially, in her complaint, the plaintiff, Charlene DeBlasi, alleges that on four occasions the defendant made complaints to the Wallingford Police Department that "falsely and maliciously accused David DeBlasi of harassing her and members of her family." The plaintiff further alleges that as a result of such complaints, David DeBlasi was arrested for breach of the peace and stalking and was required to appear in Juvenile Court. Additionally the plaintiff alleges that the defendant "demanded that David DeBlasi be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and insisted that she be present to advocate against him whenever he appeared in Juvenile Court." The plaintiff claims that as a result of the actions of the defendant, she and David DeBlasi were caused to suffer severe emotional distress.
In considering a motion to strike, the court must accept as true all well pleaded facts. Parsons v. United Technologies Corp., 243 Conn. 66, 68 (1997). The allegations contained in the pleading under attack must be construed in the manner most favorable to the pleader. RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp., 231 Conn. 381, 384 (1994).
It is the claim of the defendant in her motion to strike that the allegations contained in the first and fourth counts of the complaint, even if proven do not constitute extreme or outrageous behavior.
"In order for the plaintiff to prevail in a case for liability under . . . [intentional infliction of emotional distress], four elements must be established. It must be shown: (1) that the actor intended to inflict emotional distress or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that the defendant's conduct was the cause of the plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the plaintiff was severe." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243, 252 (1986).
"Liability [for intentional infliction of emotional distress] has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, Outrageous!" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carrol v. Allstate Ins. Co., 262 Conn. 433, 443 (2003).
In ruling upon this motion to strike the court is performing a gate-keeping function and determining whether the allegations of the complaint set forth behavior that a reasonable fact finder could find to be extreme or outrageous. Hartman v. Gulf View Estates Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc., 88 Conn.App. 290, 295 (2005). The court must make an assessment as to whether the behavior alleged fits the criteria required to establish a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id.
It is the opinion of the court that the behavior alleged in the complaint does fit that criteria. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant on four occasions filed false and malicious complaints with the Wallingford Police Department accusing David DeBlasi of harassing her and her family. Additionally it is alleged that she insisted on prosecution to the full extent of the law all of which resulted in David DeBlasi being arrested and required to appear in Juvenile Court.
Such alleged conduct, if proven, is such that it could be found by a reasonable fact finder to be extreme and outrageous. Thus the allegations of the complaint as to the first count are sufficient to withstand the motion to strike.
As to count four, however, Charlene DeBlasi has no standing to assert on her own behalf a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because there are no allegations that any complaints were made against her, she was never arrested nor was she required to appear in court.
Therefore, the motion to strike is denied as to count one of the revised complaint and granted as to count four.