DOCKET NO.: X10-UWY-CV-16-6033559-S
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`PERSONNA NOBLE, ET AL.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NORTHLAND INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL.
`
`:
`
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`
`WATERBURY
`
`AT WATERBURY
`
`AUGUST 6, 2018
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`
`STATEMENT OF INTEREST
`
`The amicus curiae, Christian Activity Council (“CAC”), is a Connecticut urban
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`mission organization founded in 1850 out of concern for the unmet needs of the poor and
`
`new immigrants in Hartford. Since its founding, CAC has responded to pressing social
`
`issues through a variety of programs and initiatives, uncovering the pressures and
`
`challenges facing the local community that are rooted in systemic injustice. CAC’s primary
`
`interest is ensuring access to the civil justice system and a higher quality of life for some
`
`of Connecticut’s poorest and most challenged communities.
`
`The bottom level of the famous hierarchy of needs, postulated by Abraham Maslow
`
`in the 1940s, is physiological. The most basic needs of human beings have to do with the
`
`survival and safety of the body. Air, water, food and shelter are the key parts of this base
`
`layer of Maslow’s pyramid. In Hartford, one of the greatest places of need in terms of
`
`adequate housing, CAC has been working for decades to put public pressure on the city
`
`and landlords to achieve changes in Hartford’s relocation process, secure needed
`
`improvements to living conditions for tenants of local apartment buildings, and provide
`
`financial restitution for those whose lives had been turned upside down by abuses in the
`
`housing system. With the help of CAC, hundreds of families displaced yearly receive the
`
`

`

`assistance they deserve to keep them in safe and stable replacement housing. CAC’s motto
`
`is: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” And indeed, these
`
`tenant communities, together, have made significant improvements to the base of Maslow’s
`
`pyramid.
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`CAC’s advocacy for the working poor began in 1989 when the Executive Director
`
`of the Hartford Housing Authority had a series of discussions with representatives of CAC
`
`regarding the housing crisis in Greater Hartford. By addressing housing conditions and
`
`advocating for very low to moderate-income families, CAC has made important
`
`contributions to the well-being of Connecticut’s least advantaged residents. In the last five
`
`decades, CAC partnered with the Connecticut Department of Housing, the Hartford
`
`Housing Authority, and created a subsidiary organization, Urban Suburban Affordables.
`
`CAC helped to establish award-winning housing developments to assist hundreds of low-
`
`income families, was honored by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment
`
`Officials for outstanding inter-jurisdictional coordination, and has been widely recognized
`
`as a significant deterrent to neighborhood decline. CAC has helped organize and empower
`
`low-income tenant communities — two of which have pursued legal claims in Connecticut
`
`courts — to uncover and remedy health and safety violations.
`
`CAC sees class actions as a crucial tool in the effort to protect the rights of low-
`
`income tenant communities. Class certification will often determine whether such people
`
`will be heard or be silenced, and whether abuses of low-income communities will be
`
`punished or perpetuated. CAC files this amicus brief both because the vindication of the
`
`plaintiffs’ rights in this case is important, and because, the Court’s decision in this case
`
`may impact future actions by low-income housing communities. CAC, as an active
`
`

`

`neighborhood organizer with a strong relationship to low-income housing communities,
`
`wishes to make sure those interests are presented to the Court.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The
`
`Motion for Certification presents an issue of importance to the potential class, but also to
`
`the ability of future classes to ensure that landlords and cities appropriately maintain low-
`
`income housing, repair uninhabitable conditions, and relocate displaced low-income
`
`families as necessary. Class actions were created to remedy exactly the kind of wrongs
`
`alleged here, both so that the class may be made whole, and so that future wrongs will be
`
`deterred. Part I describes the predicament that faces Connecticut’s low-income renters.
`
`Part II discusses the history and purpose of class actions. Part III highlights the
`
`importance of class actions to deterring future abuse of vulnerable communities. Finally,
`
`Part IV contends that these policy considerations necessarily inform the application of the
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`procedural test for class certification.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Proposed Class Represents a Particularly Vulnerable Population in
`Connecticut – Economically Disadvantaged Tenants of a Low-Income
`Housing Community.
`
`Connecticut, America’s bedroom community, is home to thousands of poor and
`
`working–class residents and families struggling to survive and to assert their rights under
`
`the weight of high housing costs. With insufficient and limited options for affordable
`
`housing, low-income renters are forced to make impossible choices—choosing between
`
`eviction and healthcare, for example, or accepting affordable but substandard living
`
`conditions.
`
`

`

`in the bottom three of all Connecticut municipalities for median family income. At
`
`$30,630, Hartford’s median family income is 56% lower than the statewide median
`
`household income of $70,331; New Haven’s median family income, $37,192, is 47%
`
`lower than the statewide median. Both cities rank among the top five Connecticut
`
`municipalities with the highest proportion of residents receiving food stamps2.3
`
`Meanwhile, as so many Connecticut families face these financial pressures, too
`
`few affordable housing units are available to serve their needs. In 2016, 11.1% of housing
`
`units statewide, a total of 164,998 units, were considered affordable—in other words,
`
`eligible for rental or mortgage assistance.4 The result is that a significant portion of the
`
`Connecticut families contend with balancing poverty wages and some of the
`
`highest housing costs in the nation. 10% of Connecticut households have earnings that
`
`fall below the federal poverty line (FPL); of those exceeding the federal poverty line,
`
`25% more (over 360,000 household) still fall short of a basic cost of living threshold.1
`
`Urban areas are particularly hard-hit: the cities of Hartford and New Haven rank
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`
`1 ALICE Update (http://alice.ctunitedway.org/housing/); Meet ALICE: The Daily
`Struggle of Financial Hardship, Connecticut United Ways, http://alice.ctunitedway.org.
`2 Generally speaking, to be eligible for SNAP benefits, a family of 4 could earn no more
`than $3,739 per month in gross income (185% of the federal poverty line), or $2,021 per
`month in net income (100% of the federal poverty line). Mary Fitzpatrick, Office of
`Legislative Research, Research Report: SNAP Financial Eligibility & Benefits, 2016-R-
`0106 (June 16, 2016), at 3; Mary Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Research, Research
`Report: SNAP Work Requirements & Enrollment by Town, 2016-R-0107 (June 17,
`2016), at 1.
`3 Mary Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Research, Research Report: SNAP Work
`Requirements & Enrollment by Town, 2016-R-0107 (June 17, 2016), at 1.
`4 Partnership for Strong Communities, 2018 Housing Data Profiles: Connecticut (Feb.
`2018), http://www.pschousing.org/files/PSC_2018HsgProfile_Connecticut.pdf, at 4; see
`also Connecticut United Ways, ALICE Update, available at
`http://alice.ctunitedway.org/housing/ (noting that nearly 277,000 households are in need
`of affordable housing).
`
`

`

`earnings of low-income Connecticut families go towards housing costs. Half of all renters
`
`in Connecticut spend more than 30% of their income on housing.5 That number soars to
`
`57% in both Hartford and New Haven.6
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`The high cost of housing leaves an enormous dent in families’ household budgets,
`
`leaving them without funds to withstand emergencies or even basic necessities. With few
`
`other options, families are often left with no choice but to remain in substandard housing,
`
`because it is the only affordable option or because they can’t afford to leave.7 As a result,
`
`the rental housing market becomes a landlords’ market, so to speak, leaving low income
`
`tenants without power to exercise their rights.
`
`Tenants rely on minimum housing standards and consumer protection laws to
`
`cabin bad landlords’ penny-pinching behaviors that put their tenants’ health and well-
`
`being at risk. See e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 47a-7 (2018) (detailing landlord’s
`
`responsibilities, including “[c]omply[ing] with the requirements of chapter 368o and all
`
`applicable building and housing codes materially affecting health and safety”); Conn.
`
`Gen. Stat. § 47a-7a(c) (2018) (prohibiting landlord from “offer[ing] for rent a dwelling
`
`unit that the landlord knows or reasonably suspects is infested with bed bugs”); Conn.
`
`Gen. Stat. § 47a-57 (2018) (detailing certificate of occupancy requirement with respect to
`
`apartments or dwelling units containing three or more housing units). But these laws
`
`provide only minimal protection to this vulnerable class of Connecticut residents. Class
`
`
`5 ALICE Update (http://alice.ctunitedway.org/housing/).
`6 Partnership for Strong Communities, 2018 Housing Data Profiles: Hartford (Feb. 2018),
`at 5, http://www.pschousing.org/files/PSC_2018HsgProfile_Hartford.pdf; Partnership for
`Strong Communities, 2018 Housing Data Profiles: New Haven (Feb. 2018), at 5,
`http://www.pschousing.org/files/PSC_2018HsgProfile_New%20Haven.pdf.
`7 Connecticut United Ways, ALICE Update (http://alice.ctunitedway.org/housing/).
`
`

`

`litigation has helped fill this void. See, e.g., Majette v. New London Hous. Auth., No.
`
`X04CV045000090S, 2005 WL 3112738, at *3-*4 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 3, 2005)
`
`(Beach, J.) (denying motion to strike count of complaint seeking injunctive relief for
`
`class of nearly three-hundred tenants of a low-income housing community); Torres v.
`
`Hartford Hous. Auth., No. CV-H90030492, 1994 WL 702883, at *1-*2 (Conn. Super. Ct.
`
`Oct. 31, 1994) (DiPentima, J.) (granting plaintiffs’ post-judgment motion for attorney’s
`
`fees in class action against Hartford Housing Authority for improperly calculating the
`
`rent of general assistance recipients); Ward v. City of New Haven, No. CVNH 9008-3948,
`
`1990 WL 265296, at *3 (Conn. Super Ct. Dec. 3, 1990) (Vertefeuille, J.) (certifying class
`
`action of low-income tenants against City of New Haven for city’s failure to comply with
`
`Uniform Relocation Assistance Act); see also Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 796-97
`
`(1994) (2d Cir. 1994) (reversing trial court’s dismissal of class action and granting class
`
`certification in class action filed on behalf of former, current and future low-income
`
`minority residents of city housing projects for racial discrimination and segregation in
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`public housing and assistance programs); Matyasovszky v. Hous. Auth. of Bridgeport, 226
`
`F.R.D. 35, 45 (D. Conn. 2005) (granting class certification in class action against city
`
`housing authority under Fair Housing Act and other federal and state statutes).
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Class Actions Are Meant to Remedy Diffuse Harms Suffered by Many
`People, Exactly Like the Claims Brought Here.
`
`Class litigation was developed to address the widespread existence of injuries too
`
`numerous and diffuse to “justify their independent commencement of actions.” Campbell
`
`v. New Milford Bd., 36 Conn. Supp. 357, 370 (1980).8 Such claims nonetheless speak a
`
`
`8 Class actions have many other benefits, including “protecting defendants from
`inconsistent obligations” and “protecting the interests of absentee parties.” Collins v.
`
`

`

`significant collective injury. When aggregated, such claims have the power to remedy
`
`injustice and deter it in the future.
`
`A review of the origin of class litigation demonstrates that class actions were
`
`designed for the very purpose of remedying low-value harms suffered by a large segment
`
`of the population. Class litigation aimed to specifically remedy “injuries unremedied by
`
`the regulatory action of government.” Deposit Guar. Nat. Bank, Jackson, Miss. v. Roper,
`
`445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on which Connecticut’s
`
`class action provisions are modeled, originated with a specific goal of addressing broad
`
`social harms experienced by disenfranchised populations. See Suzette M. Malveaux, The
`
`Modern Class Action Rule: Its Civil Rights Roots and Relevance Today, 66 Kan. L. Rev.
`
`325, 328 (2017) (noting that Rule 23’s “rich history makes clear that the drafters infused
`
`this procedural mechanism with the capacity of being used to challenge racial inequality
`
`and subordination”); Benjamin Kaplan, A Preparatory Note, 10 B.C. L. Rev. 497, 497
`
`(identifying, as one of the “dual missions” behind “[t]he entire reconstruction of [Rule
`
`23],” the “vindicate[on] [of] rights of groups of people who individually would be
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`without effective strength to bring their opponents into court at all”); see also History and
`
`
`Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 266 Conn. 12, 26 (2003) (citing Rivera v. Veterans Mem’l
`Med. Cntr., 262 Conn. 730, 735 (2003)); see also Campbell v. New Milford Bd., 36
`Conn. Supp. 357, 370 (Super. Ct. 1980). (“The reasons for the superiority of class actions
`over individual suits [are] … : (1) the alleged economic injuries to many proposed class
`members are too minuscule to justify their independent commencement of actions; (2) the
`proliferation of lawsuits that otherwise would result from the alleged pervasive
`conspiracy absent class actions will be minimized; (3) duplicative efforts by the judiciary
`and the litigants will be eliminated; (4) duplicative litigation expenses and attorneys' fees
`will be prevented; (5) defendants will be relieved from the burden of defending numerous
`lawsuits geographically scattered throughout the nation; and (6) inconsistent judicial
`decisions will be avoided.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)).
`
`
`

`

`Purpose of the Class Action, 7A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1752 (3d ed.) (“The increasing
`
`complexity and urbanization of modern American society has magnified tremendously
`
`the importance of the class action as a procedural device for resolving disputes involving
`
`numerous people.”).
`
`The Connecticut courts have similarly recognized the critical role of class
`
`litigation for the protection of vulnerable populations. In fact, the Connecticut Supreme
`
`Court has identified that class litigation in Connecticut provides a form of redress for
`
`those whose “economic position is such that it is unrealistic to expect them to seek to
`
`vindicate their rights in separate suits.” Rivera v. Veterans Mem’l Med. Ctr., 262 Conn.
`
`730, 735 (2003) (citing Grimes v. Hous. Auth. of New Haven, 242 Conn. 236, 244
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`(1997)).
`
`The fluidity of the public housing population renders housing matters particularly
`
`amenable to class litigation “because while the identity of the individuals involved may
`
`change, the nature of the harm and the basic parameters of the group affected remain
`
`constant.” Bruce v. Christian, 113 F.R.D. 554, 556 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (citing Powell v.
`
`Ward, 487 F.Supp. 917, 922 (1980)); see also Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 755, 797 (2d
`
`Cir. 1994) (“It is unfortunate that the district court took so long to rule on the question of
`
`class certification only to hold not that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they meet
`
`the necessary conditions for class certification, but that the claims have become moot.
`
`We note that housing discrimination suits of this type are acutely susceptible to mootness
`
`because of the fluid composition of the public housing population. Thus, while the harm
`
`remains constant, those who suffer from the harm often change identity.).
`
`
`
`

`

` III. Class Actions Are an Important Deterrent to Exploitation of Connecticut’s
`
`Low-Income Housing Communities.
`
`Class actions not only enable tenants of low-income housing to be obtain
`
`remedies for injuries, they deter exploitation and abuse of this vulnerable population.
`
`“Class actions can secure relief ‘that is not only longer-lasting but also broader-based,’ of
`
`critical importance to communities that are constantly confronted with nefarious business
`
`practices.” Myriam Gilles, Class Warfare: The Disappearance of Low-Income Litigants
`
`from the Civil Docket, 65 Emory L.J. 1531, 1536 (Dec. 4, 2015) [hereinafter, “Gilles,
`
`Class Warfare”] (citing Mary A Failinger & Larry May, Litigating Against Poverty:
`
`Legal Services and Group Representation, 45 Ohio St. L.J. 1, 17 (1984)). Judge Posner
`
`explained the economic basis for this deterrent effect:
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`The availability of class and collective litigation deters future wrongdoing. When
`the violator is confronted with the cost of his violation, others in his cohort are put
`on notice and can therefore determine whether to reform their practices to avoid
`such costs.
`
`Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 349-50 (1972).
`
`In this era of high income inequality and low social mobility, the deterrence
`
`function of class litigation takes on a critical role to prevent ongoing abuses directed
`
`towards the low-income community. See John C. Coffee, Jr., Entrepreneurial Litigation:
`
`Its Rise, Fall, and Future 3, 15 (2015) (observing that class actions have historically
`
`“empowered persons who otherwise lacked access to courts,” and given “a legal voice to
`
`the unrepresented”). This function is particularly important because members of low-
`
`income groups “are likely to experience the same or similar wrongdoing again in the
`
`future.” Gilles, Class Warfare, at 1538. “Accordingly, the failure to detect and deter bad
`
`actors who prey on the poor only promotes chronic exploitation and the perpetuation of
`
`

`

`intractable poverty. In sum, the decline in class actions not only leaves economically
`
`fragile populations without a potent remedy for past wrongdoing, it leaves them far more
`
`vulnerable to future exploitation.” Id.9
`
`IV. Class Certification Requirements – Especially for CUTPA Claims – Should
`Be Read and Applied to Serve the Societal Interests in Remedying Class
`Members’ Injuries and Deterring Future Wrongdoing.
`
`With the purposes class actions are meant to serve in mind, it is no surprise that
`
`
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`Connecticut courts hold that class certification rules advanced under Sections 9-7 and 9-8
`
`“are to be given a liberal construction.” Campbell v. New Milford Bd. of Educ., 36 Conn.
`
`Supp. 357, 360 (1980); see also Annelli v. Ford Motor Co., No. 4001345, 2007 WL
`
`3087959, at *6 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 4, 2007) (Leuba, J.) (same); Lawrence Mall of New
`
`Haven, Inc. v. City of W. Haven, No. CV030478088, 2004 WL 237926, at *3 (Conn.
`
`Super. Ct. Jan. 20, 2004) (Arnold, J.) (same); McNerney v. Carvel Corp., No. CV 00-
`
`579244, 2001 WL 267653, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 23, 2001) (Solomon, J.) (same);
`
`Gianetti v. Bonvincini, No. CV 990364528S, 2000 WL 264286, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct.
`
`Feb. 7, 2000) (Moran, J.) (same); Humiston v. Town of Southbury, No. CV960133244S,
`
`2000 WL 1624367, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct. Sept. 28, 2000) (Holzberg, J.) (same);
`
`Maltagliati v. Wilson, No. CV 970575612, 1999 WL 971116, at *2 (Conn. Super. Ct.
`
`Oct. 7, 1999) (Mulcahy, J.) (same).
`
`
`9 Class actions are an important tool to remedy the “justice gap”, writes Barbara
`Rabinowitz, legal author and commentator. The “justice gap,” or disparity between the
`legal needs of low-income people and the capacity of the civil justice system to assist
`with those needs, helps account for the 80% of low-income Americans who are prevented
`from accessing the courts to pursue their claims or protect their interests in court.
`Barbara Rabinowitz, Servicing the Poor, Mass L. Weekly, n. 23 (May 10, 1993).
`
`

`

`The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that “doubts regarding the propriety of
`
`class certification should be resolved in favor of certification,” Neighborhood Builders,
`
`Inc. v. Town of Madison, 294 Conn. 651, 657 (2010) (citing Artie’s Auto Body, Inc. v.
`
`Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208, 212 (2008)), and advanced a standard of review
`
`providing “greater deference to a trial court's decision to certify a class than to its
`
`decision declining to do so,” Ahmad v. Yale-New Haven Hosp., 104 Conn. App. 380, 386
`
`(2007) (citing Macomber v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Corp., 277 Conn. 617, 626–28
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`(2006)).
`
`By the same token, the Supreme Court has stated that Connecticut’s Practice
`
`Book establishes a lower standard for class certification than that advanced under the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rivera v. Veterans Mem'l Med. Ctr., 262 Conn. 730,
`
`737 (2003) (reasoning, in holding that trial court’s decertification of class was improper,
`
`that while the Connecticut Supreme Court “look[s] to federal case law for guidance in
`
`construing our class certification requirements” “[it] do[es] so, however, mindful that the
`
`federal rules impose additional constraints on trial courts overseeing class actions
`
`beyond those under our rules” (emphasis added) (citing Marr v. WMX Tech., 244 Conn.
`
`676, 680-81 (1998)); see also Dougan v. Sikorsky Airline Corp., No. X03CV126033069,
`
`2016 WL 921779, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 11, 2016) (Miller, J.), vacated sub
`
`nom. Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., No. X03HHDCV126033069S, 2017 WL
`
`7806431 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2017) (“Although it is true that Connecticut courts look to
`
`federal law for guidance on issues of class certification . . . this does not mean that
`
`Connecticut courts are always bound by federal law regarding certification. Connecticut
`
`

`

`does have directly binding precedent regarding the factual showing for a motion for
`
`certification of a class action.” (internal citations omitted)).
`
`Similar to common-law class actions, which were designed “in response to the
`
`existence of injuries remedied by the regulatory action of government,” Deposit Guar.
`
`Nat. Bank, Jackson, Miss. v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980), CUTPA was designed to
`
`“encourage litigants to act as private attorneys general and to engage in bringing actions
`
`that have as their basis unfair or deceptive trade practices,” Thames River Recycling Inc.
`
`v. Gallo, 50 Conn. App. 767, 794-95 (1998). That CUTPA class actions are intended is
`
`unmistakable – the Act specifically provides that CUTPA plaintiffs “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 or injured
`
`in this state to recover damages.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(b).
`
`CUTPA deters predatory commercial conduct, shields Connecticut’s residents
`
`from unfair sales, marketing, and leasing and otherwise commercial practices, and
`
`encourages private citizens to hold wrongdoers accountable. But it was “designed to
`
`provide protection to a much broader class” than merely consumers. Larsen Chelsey
`
`Realty Co. v. Larsen, 232 Conn. 480, 497 (1995). As noted by the Connecticut Supreme
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`Court:
`
`[O]ur General Assembly . . . deliberately chose not to define the scope of
`unfair or deceptive acts proscribed by CUTPA so that courts might
`develop a body of law responsive to the marketplace practices that
`actually generate such complaints. . . . Predictably, [therefore,] CUTPA
`has come to embrace a much broader range of business conduct than does
`the common law tort action.
`
`Assoc. Inv. Co. P'ship v. Williams Assocs. IV, 230 Conn. 148, 157–58 (1994) (internal
`
`quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`

`

`
`
`In view of CUTPA’s expansive applications and its fundamental purpose of
`
`providing a remedy to those harmed by unfair and unscrupulous commercial practices,
`
`CUTPA’s class action provisions have been construed broadly to certify classes of low-
`
`income tenants seeking redress for harms caused by bad and predatory landlords. For
`
`example, in Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484 (1983), a plaintiff class of low-income
`
`tenants challenged their landlord’s failure to obtain certificates of occupancy while
`
`maintaining the apartments in an “uninhabitable” condition, involving “numerous and
`
`severe housing and health code violations.” Id. at 488. The Supreme Court affirmed a
`
`finding that the landlords had violated CUTPA by collecting rent while failing to
`
`maintain the rental properties, remanding only for a recalculation of the “ascertainable
`
`loss” to each class member. Id. at 493, 495. And in Hernandez v. Monterey Vill. Assocs.
`
`Ltd. P'ship, 17 Conn. App. 421 (1989), the Appellate Court concluded that a plaintiff
`
`class of tenants was eligible for attorneys’ fees and costs under CUTPA, after the class
`
`settled their claims with their landlord for maintaining their units “in a condition violating
`
`state and local ordinances” and for illegally attempting to evict them. Id. at 422–23,
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`425–26.
`
`Plaintiffs’ CUTPA claims particularly warrant class certification in light of the
`
`statute’s express remedial purpose. See Gen. Stat. § 42-110b(d) (“It is the intention of the
`
`legislature that this chapter [CUTPA] be remedial and be so construed.”); Larsen Chelsey
`
`Realty Co., 232 Conn. at 492 (1995) (stating that CUTPA “is remedial in character . . .
`
`and must be liberally construed in favor of those whom the legislature intended to
`
`benefit.” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)).
`
`

`

`Indeed, there is “no . . . unfair method of competition, or unfair deceptive act or
`
`practice that cannot be reached [under CUTPA].” Assoc. Inv. Co. P’ship, 230 Conn. at
`
`156-58 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (citing Conn. Joint Standing
`
`Comm. Hearings, Gen. L., Pt. 2, 1973 Sess., p. 705, remarks of Attorney Robert Sils,
`
`Dept. of Consumer Protect.); see also Caleb Vill. Heights Found. v. Barclay, No. 063265,
`
`2001 WL 56434, at *2-3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 8, 2001) (Foley, J.) (finding viable
`
`CUTPA claim where landlord caused tenants “to incur numerous damages by failing to
`
`correct a sewage problem that it knew existed, thereby failing to maintain the property in
`
`a safe and habitable condition” and “enhancing its economic condition by failing to make
`
`the necessary expenditures that public policy demand[ed]”). CUTPA’s design and
`
`application to combat unfair trade practices exploiting vulnerable populations – such as
`
`plaintiffs in this matter – thus further support class certification in this matter.
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Article I, Section 10 of the Connecticut Constitution provides that “[a]ll courts
`
`shall be open, and every person . . . shall have remedy by due course of law.” This is a
`
`living statement of Connecticut public policy; class actions are an essential tool to
`
`advance this policy. Without class actions, tenants of low-income housing communities
`
`would lack the realistic ability to find legal redress.10 For tenants of low-income housing
`
`communities, class litigation is not only superior, but often the only form of redress
`
`
`10 The Connecticut Supreme Court has “generally [] held that article first, § 10, prohibits
`the legislature from abolishing or significantly limiting common law and certain statutory
`rights that were redressable in court as of 1818, when the constitution was first adopted,
`and which were “incorporated in that provision by virtue of being established by law as
`rights the breach of which precipitates a recognized injury....” Moore v. Ganim, 233
`Conn. 557, 573–74 (1995) (internal citations omitted).
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`available to remedy past and prevent future harms incurred at the hands of unscrupulous
`
`landlords. The purported class includes vulnerable tenants of low-income housing
`
`communities. These policy considerations support class certification in this matter.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`CHRISTIAN ACTIVITIES COUNCIL
`
`By
`
` _/s/ Jeffrey Wisner_________
`JEFFREY WISNER
`SARAH STEINFELD
`ALINOR C. STERLING
`KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER
`350 FAIRFIELD AVENUE
`BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604
`PHONE: (203) 336-4421
`FAX: (203) 368-3244
`JURIS #32250
`jwisner@koskoff.com
`
`
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`

`

`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been e-mailed, this day to
`
`all counsel of record, to wit:
`
`David N. Rosen
`Barbara Goren
`Alexander Taubes
`David Rosen & Associates, P.C.
`400 Orange Street
`New Haven, CT 06511
`
`Michael O. Sheehan
`Allison Murray Near
`Sheehan, Reeve, & Near
`350 Orange Street, Suite 101
`New Haven, CT 06511
`
`David S. Hardy, Esquire
`Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey, LLP
`P.O. Box 1950
`New Haven, CT 06509
`
`Marc Justin Kurzman, Esquire
`Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey, LLP
`707 Summer Street – Suite 300
`Stamford, CT 06901
`
`Michael D. Neubert, Esquire
`Neubert Pepe & Monteith PC
`195 Church Street - 13th floor
`New Haven, CT 06510
`
`Robert Hinton, Esquire
`Pullman & Comley, LLC
`90 State House Square
`Hartford, CT 06103
`
`Henry A. Sullivan, Esquire
`Mintz Levin
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`
`
`
`__/s/ Jeffrey Wisner
`JEFFREY WISNER
`KOSKOFF KOSKOFF & BIEDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`350 FAIRFIELD AVENUE
`BRIDGEPORT, CT 06604
`PHONE: (203) 336-4421
`FAX: (203) 368-3244
`JURIS #32250
`jwisner@koskoff.com
`
`NOT APPROVED:
`Rejected. See 118.10
`
`