Connecticut State Court Class Action Complaint

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT)

SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF [________________________________]

AT [________________________________]

Docket No.: [________________________________]

Return Date: [__/__/____]

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff [________________________________] ("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through undersigned counsel, brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendant [________________________________] ("Defendant"), and alleges upon personal knowledge as to matters concerning Plaintiff and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

COUNT ONE: VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, CONN. GEN. STAT. § 42-110a et seq.

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a class action brought under Conn. Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8 on behalf of a class of Connecticut consumers/persons/businesses who [________________________________] [describe class and common grievance].

2. Defendant engaged in [________________________________] [describe unlawful conduct], which caused common and uniform injury to Plaintiff and all members of the proposed Class.

3. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, discretionary punitive damages under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a), equitable relief, declaratory and injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because the Connecticut Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction with original jurisdiction over all causes of action except as otherwise provided by law. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-164s.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because (check all that apply):

☐ Defendant is incorporated, organized, or maintains its principal place of business in the State of Connecticut;
☐ Defendant transacts business within Connecticut within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-929(f) (foreign corporation long-arm) and/or § 52-59b (individual long-arm);
☐ Defendant contracted to supply goods or services in Connecticut;
☐ Defendant caused tortious injury in Connecticut by an act or omission in Connecticut;
☐ Defendant caused tortious injury in Connecticut by an act or omission outside Connecticut and regularly does or solicits business in, engages in any other persistent course of conduct in, or derives substantial revenue from goods or services consumed in Connecticut;
☐ Other: [________________________________].

6. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-345 because (check all that apply):

☐ Plaintiff resides in this Judicial District (§ 51-345(a)(1));
☐ Defendant resides in or has its principal place of business in this Judicial District (§ 51-345(a)(1));
☐ The transaction or injury out of which the cause of action arose occurred in this Judicial District (§ 51-345(c));
☐ Defendant is a foreign corporation transacting business in this Judicial District (§ 51-345(c));
☐ Other: [________________________________].

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

7. Plaintiff [________________________________] is a natural person residing in [Town/City], [County] County, Connecticut.

8. At all relevant times, Plaintiff [________________________________] [describe Plaintiff's connection: purchased Defendant's product, paid for Defendant's services, was charged the disputed fee, or — if a business-to-business CUTPA claim — engaged in commercial dealings with Defendant].

B. Defendant

9. Defendant [________________________________] is a [corporation/LLC/partnership] organized under the laws of [State], with its principal place of business at [________________________________]. Defendant is registered to do business in Connecticut and maintains a statutory agent for service of process at [________________________________].

10. At all relevant times, Defendant [________________________________] [describe Defendant's business activities and how they affected Connecticut consumers / the Class].

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Background

11. [________________________________] [describe industry, product, service, or scheme].

12. [________________________________] [describe Defendant's standardized practice or representation].

13. [________________________________] [describe how the practice was uniform across the Class].

B. Defendant's Course of Conduct

14. Beginning on or about [__/__/____], and continuing through the present, Defendant uniformly [________________________________].

15. Defendant's conduct was directed at Connecticut consumers/persons/businesses through [________________________________] [marketing channels, form contracts, billing practices, etc.].

16. Defendant's [________________________________] [representations/omissions/charges] were materially [false/misleading/unauthorized] in that [________________________________].

C. Plaintiff's Experience

17. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff [________________________________] in [Town/City], Connecticut.

18. In connection with that transaction, Defendant [________________________________].

19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property in the amount of approximately $[________], plus consequential damages, and is entitled to such further relief as alleged below.

D. Common Harm to Class Members

20. Plaintiff and all members of the proposed Class were harmed by Defendant's same standardized conduct in the same manner, differing only in the amount of monetary loss.

21. Defendant's records, including [________________________________] [transaction databases, billing records, customer files], permit the identification of Class members and the calculation of individual damages on a class-wide basis.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

22. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself/herself and all others similarly situated pursuant to Conn. Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8(1), 9-8(2), and/or 9-8(3), and pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(b) (which specifically authorizes class actions to enforce CUTPA).

A. Class Definition

23. The proposed Class is defined as:

All persons [or businesses] in the State of Connecticut who [________________________________] during the period from [__/__/____] to the present (the "Class Period").

24. Excluded from the Class are:
    - Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents, successors, and assigns;
    - The judicial officers presiding over this action, members of their judicial staff, and members of their immediate families;
    - All persons who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class; and
    - [________________________________].

25. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify, amend, or refine the Class definition based on information developed in discovery and on the issues identified by the Court at certification. See Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (2005).

B. Numerosity – Pr. Bk. § 9-7(1)

26. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the Class consists of at least [________] persons.

27. The identities of Class members can be ascertained through Defendant's books and records.

C. Commonality – Pr. Bk. § 9-7(2)

28. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, including without limitation:

a. Whether Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein;

b. Whether Defendant's conduct constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of any trade or commerce within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a);

c. Whether Defendant's representations and/or omissions were material;

d. Whether Defendant's conduct caused an "ascertainable loss" within the meaning of § 42-110g(a);

e. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to actual damages, discretionary punitive damages, equitable relief, declaratory or injunctive relief;

f. The appropriate measure of damages and the method by which damages may be calculated on a class-wide basis.

D. Typicality – Pr. Bk. § 9-7(3)

29. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff and each Class member were injured by the same standardized course of conduct by Defendant. Plaintiff and the Class share the same legal theories, and Plaintiff is not subject to any unique defenses. See Rivera v. Veterans Memorial Med. Ctr., 262 Conn. 730 (2003).

E. Adequacy – Pr. Bk. § 9-7(4)

30. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, including Connecticut class action practice.

F. Maintainable Under Pr. Bk. § 9-8(3) – Predominance and Superiority

31. Questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The central liability questions turn on Defendant's uniform conduct, not on any individualized inquiry. See Macomber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 277 Conn. 617 (2006) (predominance analysis under Pr. Bk. § 9-8(3)).

32. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:

a. Class members' individual damages are modest relative to the burden and expense of individual litigation, making individual prosecution economically impractical;

b. Class adjudication will conserve judicial resources and avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications;

c. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class; and

d. Management of this case as a class action presents no unusual difficulties.

See Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (2005) (Connecticut rigorous-analysis framework).

G. Maintainable Under Pr. Bk. § 9-8(1) and 9-8(2) (Alternative)

33. In the alternative, certification is appropriate under Pr. Bk. § 9-8(1)(A) because prosecution of separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.

34. Certification is appropriate under Pr. Bk. § 9-8(1)(B) because adjudications with respect to individual Class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class members or substantially impair their ability to protect their interests.

35. Certification is appropriate under Pr. Bk. § 9-8(2) because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief appropriate respecting the Class as a whole.

VI. CUTPA LIABILITY ALLEGATIONS

36. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(a) prohibits any person from engaging in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." The term "trade or commerce" is defined broadly under § 42-110a(4) and is not limited to consumer transactions; it expressly reaches commercial dealings of every kind. See Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Conn., Inc., 238 Conn. 216 (1996).

37. Defendant's conduct constituted an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce because [________________________________] (apply the so-called "cigarette rule" factors: (a) whether the practice offends public policy as established by statute, common law, or otherwise; (b) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and/or (c) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, competitors, or other businesspersons).

38. Plaintiff and the Class members suffered an "ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal" as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a).

39. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g:

a. Actual damages (§ 42-110g(a));

b. Discretionary punitive damages where the violation was reckless, intentional, or otherwise warrants such an award under Connecticut common law standards governing punitive damages (§ 42-110g(a)) — Plaintiff does not seek and is not entitled to automatic treble damages, and pleads punitive relief within the Court's discretion;

c. Equitable relief, including restitution (§ 42-110g(d));

d. Reasonable attorney's fees and court costs (§ 42-110g(d));

e. Costs incurred in connection with the prosecution of this action.

COUNT TWO: COMMON LAW FRAUD / FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) [as applicable]

40-46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 of Count One as if fully set forth herein.

47. Defendant made material misrepresentations and/or omissions concerning [________________________________].

48. Defendant knew the representations were false or made them with reckless disregard for their truth.

49. Defendant intended that Plaintiff and the Class rely on the representations.

50. Plaintiff and the Class justifiably relied on the representations to their detriment.

51. Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT THREE: BREACH OF CONTRACT

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) [as applicable]

52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 of Count One as if fully set forth herein.

53. Plaintiff and each Class member entered into a contract with Defendant on substantially uniform terms.

54. Defendant breached the contract by [________________________________].

55. Plaintiff and the Class performed all obligations under the contract, or any nonperformance was excused.

56. Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages proximately caused by the breach in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT FOUR: UNJUST ENRICHMENT / RESTITUTION

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) (Pleaded in the Alternative)

57. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 of Count One as if fully set forth herein.

58. Plaintiff and the Class conferred a benefit upon Defendant in the form of [________________________________].

59. Defendant knew of and accepted the benefit.

60. It would be inequitable to permit Defendant to retain the benefit without payment of its value to Plaintiff and the Class.

61. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to restitution and disgorgement of all monies Defendant obtained as a result of its conduct.

COUNT FIVE: DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 of Count One as if fully set forth herein.

63. A justiciable controversy exists concerning the legality of Defendant's conduct.

64. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to a judicial declaration that Defendant's conduct is unlawful under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-29 (Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act) and Conn. Practice Book § 17-54 et seq., and to injunctive relief enjoining further unlawful conduct.

COUNT SIX: [Additional state-law claim, e.g., breach of implied warranty under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-2-314; negligent misrepresentation; conversion]

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

65. [________________________________]

66. [________________________________]

67. [________________________________]

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself/herself and the Class, respectfully claims:

A. Certification of this action as a class action under Conn. Practice Book §§ 9-7 and 9-8 and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(b); appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative; and appointment of the undersigned as Class Counsel;

B. Actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

C. Discretionary punitive damages under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a) and under Connecticut common law where warranted;

D. Restitution, disgorgement, and other equitable relief under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(d);

E. A declaratory judgment that Defendant's conduct violates Connecticut law;

F. Permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendant from continuing the unlawful conduct;

G. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-3a);

H. Reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees, expenses, and costs pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(d) and any other applicable authority; and

I. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

The amount in demand, exclusive of interest and costs, is greater than $15,000.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself/herself and the Class, hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to Conn. Const. art. I, § 19 and Conn. Practice Book § 14-10.

DATED: [__/__/____]

THE PLAINTIFF,
[________________________________]

By: [________________________________]
[Attorney Name]
Juris No. [________]
[Firm Name]
[Address]
[City, Connecticut ZIP]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Facsimile: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

CONNECTICUT-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

1. Practice Book Framework. Connecticut class action procedure is contained at Conn. Practice Book §§ 9-7 (prerequisites), 9-8 (types maintainable), and 9-9 (certification determination). These provisions closely parallel Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and are interpreted under Connecticut Supreme Court precedent — primarily Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (2005), and Macomber v. Travelers Property & Casualty Corp., 277 Conn. 617 (2006).

2. CUTPA's Distinctive Features.

• Breadth. CUTPA applies to "trade or commerce" generally and is not limited to consumer transactions. Business-to-business disputes are covered. Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Conn., Inc., 238 Conn. 216 (1996).
• Class actions expressly authorized. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(b) provides: "Persons entitled to bring an action under subsection (a) of this section may, pursuant to rules established by the judges of the Superior Court, bring a class action on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated who are residents of this state . . . ."
• DISCRETIONARY punitive damages — NO automatic treble. Unlike FDUTPA, NY GBL § 349, or Massachusetts ch. 93A, CUTPA does NOT impose mandatory or automatic treble damages. § 42-110g(a) authorizes "punitive damages" as the trier of fact may determine in its discretion. Do not plead "treble damages" under CUTPA.
• Attorney's fees and costs. Mandatory if plaintiff prevails. § 42-110g(d).
• Ascertainable loss requirement. Plaintiff must plead and prove an "ascertainable loss of money or property" — a relatively low but non-zero threshold. § 42-110g(a).

3. Cigarette Rule. Connecticut applies the "cigarette rule" from FTC's 1964 cigarette guides in evaluating whether conduct is "unfair" under CUTPA: (a) whether the practice offends public policy as established by statute, common law, or otherwise; (b) whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; (c) whether it causes substantial injury to consumers, competitors, or other businesspersons. Plead the relevant factor(s) explicitly.

4. Rigorous Analysis at Certification. Connecticut applies a rigorous-analysis framework, requiring the trial court to "probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question." Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (2005); Macomber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 277 Conn. 617 (2006); Rivera v. Veterans Memorial Med. Ctr., 262 Conn. 730 (2003).

**5. Return Date and Process. ** Connecticut civil actions commence with a Summons (Form JD-CV-1) and a Return Date set by the plaintiff, typically the second or third Tuesday after service. Service must be made at least 12 days before the Return Date (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-46), and the Summons and Complaint must be returned to court at least 6 days before the Return Date (§ 52-46a). Compute the Return Date with care for class actions to allow for prompt entry of appearance and scheduling motions.

6. Venue. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-345 governs venue in the Superior Court. The judicial district is selected based on residence of the plaintiff or defendant, where the cause of action arose, or — for foreign corporations — where they transact business.

**7. CUTPA Notice Requirement to Attorney General. ** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(c) requires the plaintiff to mail a copy of the complaint to the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Consumer Protection at the time of filing. Failure to do so does not destroy the cause of action but can affect proceedings. Counsel should confirm and document compliance.

**8. Pre-Judgment Remedy Procedures. ** If the plaintiff seeks a pre-judgment remedy (attachment, garnishment), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-278a to 52-278n require an application, supporting affidavit, and probable-cause hearing before the remedy issues. This procedure is separate from the class action mechanics but may be relevant in some commercial class cases.

VERIFICATION (OPTIONAL — required only where specifically authorized by statute or rule)

I, [________________________________], am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned action. I have read the foregoing Class Action Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Connecticut that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on [__/__/____] at [________________________________], Connecticut.

[________________________________]
Plaintiff Signature

CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER OF CONSUMER PROTECTION

I hereby certify, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(c), that on [__/__/____] a copy of the foregoing Class Action Complaint was mailed via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to:

Attorney General of the State of Connecticut
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106

Commissioner of Consumer Protection
State of Connecticut
450 Columbus Boulevard, Suite 901
Hartford, CT 06103

[________________________________]
Signature

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____] a true and correct copy of the foregoing CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT was filed and served via:

☐ Connecticut Judicial Branch electronic filing system (E-Services)
☐ State Marshal personal service
☐ Certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested
☐ Hand delivery

upon all parties of record and/or upon the following:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

[________________________________]
Signature

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Conn. Practice Book §§ 9-7, 9-8, 9-9 (Class Actions): https://www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a et seq. (CUTPA): https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_735a.htm
• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g (Private Right of Action): https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_735a.htm#sec_42-110g
• Collins v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 275 Conn. 309 (2005)
• Macomber v. Travelers Property & Cas. Corp., 277 Conn. 617 (2006)
• Rivera v. Veterans Memorial Med. Ctr., 262 Conn. 730 (2003)
• Napoletano v. CIGNA Healthcare of Conn., Inc., 238 Conn. 216 (1996)

This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Connecticut class action complaints require specialized expertise and should be prepared with the assistance of experienced Connecticut class action counsel.