Torcasio v. New Canaan Board of Education et al

Filing 136

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the motion for summary judgment as to the counterclaim (Doc. No. 103 ) is hereby DENIED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 3/20/17. (Rafferty, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------ANTONIA TORCASIO,

x
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
NEW CANAAN BOARD OF EDUCATION, TOWN :
OF NEW CANAAN, and BRUCE GLUCK,
:
:
Defendants.
:
-------------------------------x

Civil No. 3:15-cv-0053(AWT)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNTERCLAIM
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary
Judgment as to Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff New Canaan Board
of Education’s Counterclaim Against Plaintiff-Counterclaim
Defendant (Doc. No. 103) is hereby DENIED.
A party seeking recovery for unjust enrichment must prove
three elements: “(1) that the defendant[] [was] benefitted; (2)
that the defendant[] unjustly did not pay the plaintiff for the
benefits; and (3) that the failure of payment was to the
plaintiff’s detriment.”

Marlin Broad., LLC v. Law Office of

Kent Avery, LLC, 101 Conn. App. 638, 648-49 (2007) (quoting
Hartford Whalers Hockey Club v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 231
Conn. 276, 283 (1994)).

“A right of recovery under the doctrine

of unjust enrichment is essentially equitable, its basis being
that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good
conscience for one to retain a benefit which has come to him at

the expense of another.”
500, 511 (1999).

Meaney v. Conn. Hosp. Ass’n, 250 Conn.

“Unjust enrichment is, consistent with the

principles of equity, a broad and flexible remedy.”

Id. at 512.

“With no other test than what, under a given set of
circumstances, is just or unjust, equitable or inequitable,
conscionable or unconscionable, it becomes necessary in any case
where the benefit of the doctrine is claimed, to examine the
circumstances and the conduct of the parties and apply this
standard.”

Id. at 511-12.

Here, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether
it was unjust that the plaintiff did not pay for a benefit she
received.

Determination of the factual questions raised by the

plaintiff with respect to the surviving counts in her complaint
is a necessary precondition to a determination as to whether,
under all the circumstances here, it was unjust that the
plaintiff did not pay for the benefits.
It is so ordered.
Signed this 20th day of March, 2017, at Hartford,
Connecticut.

/s/ AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge