Speer v. Skaats

── Speer v. Skaats ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 28, 2026 Author: Alvord Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Speer v. Skaats SHERI SPEER v. DONNA SKAATS ET AL. (AC 47921) Alvord, Moll and Seeley, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the defen- dants’ motions to dismiss her complaint, in which she sought, inter alia, an injunction requiring the defendants to return to her certain of her confidential records and documents they allegedly had misappropriated in violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) (§ 35-50 et seq.). The plaintiff claimed that the court erred in determining that her alleged failure to comply with the three year statute of limitations (§ 35-56) in CUTSA could properly be raised in a motion to dismiss. Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the defendants’ counsel, L, as the plaintiff failed to demon- strate a common factual issue and a substantial relationship between the present action and L’s representation of the plaintiff in an action seventeen years earlier. The trial court improperly rendered judgment for the defendants, as they improperly raised § 35-36 in their motions to dismiss when they were instead required to plead it as a special defense under the applicable rule of practice (§ 10-50). Because the right of action raised in the plaintiff’s complaint existed at common law, independent of CUTSA, § 35-56 was not jurisdictional in nature, and there was no indication in the legislative history and case law predating the 1983 enactment of CUTSA that the legislature intended to deprive trial courts of subject matter jurisdiction over untimely trade secret actions; accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Argued December 9, 2025—officially released April 28, 2026 Procedural History Action seeking, inter alia, an injunction requiring the defendants to return to the plaintiff certain of her confi- dential records the defendants allegedly had misappropri- ated, and for other relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New London, where the court, Graff, J., denied the plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the defendants’ counsel; thereafter, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and rendered judgment  Speer v. Skaats thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Reversed in part; judgment directed; further proceedings. Sheri Speer, self-represented, the appellan