Wood-Smith v. Diserio, Martin, Etc., No. Cv89-0104498 (Apr. 29, 1991)

1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3721, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 493
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedApril 29, 1991
DocketNo. CV89-0104498
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3721 (Wood-Smith v. Diserio, Martin, Etc., No. Cv89-0104498 (Apr. 29, 1991)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wood-Smith v. Diserio, Martin, Etc., No. Cv89-0104498 (Apr. 29, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3721, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 493 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (#116) This action arises our of investments made in a Connecticut limited partnership known as Northeast (I) Innkeepers Limited Partnership ("Northeast"), which limited partnership was a 99% limited partner of three additional limited partnerships ("Additional Partnerships"). The named plaintiffs, Donald Wood-Smith and Phillip Casson, are investors in and limited partners of Northeast. They bring this action individually, derivatively, and as representatives on behalf of all the limited partners of Northeast and the additional partnerships similarly situated. The defendants are two law firms, a partner in one of those law firms, and Barclays Bank of New York. The complaint alleges violations by the defendants of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the common law of negligence and conspiracy with the intent to defraud. The defendants are alleged to be responsible, inter alia, for the creation of the partnerships and mortgage financing of properties purchased by the three additional partnerships.

Plaintiffs received a "Private Placement Memorandum" CT Page 3722 offering twenty-five limited partnership units of $99,000 each to raise $2,475,000 for the purpose of obtaining an interest in a limited partnership which would acquire and indirectly own three Super 8 motels. They, along with thirty-seven other persons (two of whom are defendants in this action), became limited partners of Northeast. Plaintiff Wood-Smith invested $49,500 and plaintiff Casson invested $99,000. Of the thirty-nine limited partners, sixteen are Connecticut residents, eight are New York residents, four reside in New Jersey, three reside in Massachusetts, two are residents of Virginia, and Arizona, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, The District of Columbia and Switzerland each account for one limited partner. The plaintiffs are now moving to have the limited partners of Northeast certified as a class pursuant to Practice Book 86 et seq.

Conn. Practice Book 87 provides that:

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) class is so numerous that joinder of the members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Conn. Practice Book 88 provides that:

An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of Sec. 87 are satisfied and the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

Because these rules are so similar to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may refer to federal precedents in deciding whether to certify the case as a class action. Governors Grove Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Hill Development Corp., 35 Conn. Sup. 199, 200 (Super.Ct. 1979). The court has discretion in determining the appropriateness of a class action, and the requirements of 87 are to be liberally construed. Campbell v. New Milford Board of Education, 36 Conn. Sup. 357,360 (Super.Ct. 1980). In addition, the plaintiffs have the burden of establishing that the prerequisites to a class action have been satisfied. Id.

In this case, because the plaintiffs have failed to meet CT Page 3723 the "numerosity" requirement of 87, the other prerequisites need not be addressed by the court.

The first prerequisite plaintiffs must satisfy is the "numerosity" requirement contained in Practice Bk. 87(1). This section require that the proposed close be so numerous that joinder is impracticable. "Impracticability does not mean impossibility, but only that the joinder of all members of the class would be difficult or inconvenient." Jackson v. Rapps,132 F.R.D. 226, 230 (W.D. Mo. 1990). When the putative class is small, factors other than numbers alone may be significant. Riordan v. Smith Barney, 113 F.R.D. 60, 62 (N.D. Ill. 1986). Other factors considered by the courts include judicial economy and the ability of class members to institute suits individually, see Patrykus v. Gomilla, 121 Conn. F.R.D. 357, 361 (N.D. Ill. 1988); geographical dispersion of class members, e.g. Riordan v. Smith Barney, 113 F.R.D. 60, 62 (N.D. Ill. 1986); Ewh v. Monarch Wine Company, Inc., 73 F.R.D. 131 (E.D.N.Y. 1977); see also SPG Investment Associates, 691 F. Sup. 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); see also Investment Association v. Berry Petroleum, [1987-88 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 93, 657 (D.Mn. December 30, 1987).

On Riordan, cited previously, the court certified a class of investors consisting of twenty-nine persons from nine different states, finding the geographical dispersion sufficient "to justify a finding that joinder is impracticable in a securities case like this one." Iiordan, 113 F.R.D. at 62. However, in Block v. First Blood Associates, 125 F.R.D. 39, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) the court stated ". . . although Riordan cites geographical dispersion of potential class members as a factor in determining practicability of joinder, such dispersion is not enough to meet Rule 23(a)'s arequirement." In Dannenberg v. Dorison, 603 F. Sup. 1238 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), the court indicated a reluctance to follow the cases using geographical dispersion as a basis for finding the numerosity requirement satisfied, stating "Rule 23(a)(1) by its terms requires that the number of potential class members make joinder impracticable." In Dannenberg, the purported class of investors numbered at most thirty-three, and the plaintiff's investment in the limited partnership was $50,000. The court denied class certification. Id. The court in SPG Investment Association v. Berry Petroleum, [1987-88 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 93, 657 (D. Mn. December 30, 1987), denied class certification to a class of investors composed of forty persons, each of whom had invested between $12,000 and $150,000. Its analysis of the numerosity requirement included assessments of the number of persons in the proposed class, the size of each claim, the nature of the action, and the inconvenience of trying individual law suits. Id. Quoting McMerly v. Burtness, 72 F.R.D. 450, 453 (D. Minn. 1976), the SPG CT Page 3724 court stated `This case does not present the situation in which the small magnitude of each claim relative to the high cost of individual litigation makes a class action the only effective mechanism for seeking redress." Id.

Spectrum Financial Companies v. Marconsult, Inc., 608 F.2d 377 (9th Cir.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Campbell v. New Milford Board of Education
423 A.2d 900 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1980)
Governors Grove Condominium Ass'n v. Hill Development Corp.
404 A.2d 131 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1979)
McMerty v. Burtness
72 F.R.D. 450 (D. Minnesota, 1976)
Ewh v. Monarch Wine Co.
73 F.R.D. 131 (E.D. New York, 1977)
Spectrum Financial Companies v. Marconsult, Inc.
608 F.2d 377 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)
Riordan v. Barney
113 F.R.D. 60 (E.D. Illinois, 1986)
Block v. First Blood Associates
125 F.R.D. 39 (S.D. New York, 1989)
Jackson v. Rapps
132 F.R.D. 226 (W.D. Missouri, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3721, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-smith-v-diserio-martin-etc-no-cv89-0104498-apr-29-1991-connsuperct-1991.