Tebbets et al. v. The Oliver Group, LLC, et al.

Court's Memorandum of Decision Denying Motion to Strike


This action for damages was filed on behalf of a Pawcatuck, CT couple who allege claims for negligence, nuisance (public and private) and negligent infliction of emotional distress, arising out the Oliver Group's use of property for its business, and claims that the Town of Stonington has allowed a nuisance to exist next door to the plaintiffs' home. The couple alleges numerous violations of the law in connection with the parcel next door to their home, including: illegal parking in a residential zone; an unapproved use of the building without the owners applying for or obtaining a variance; an increase in the size of Oliver's building without regard to property line setbacks or required buffers between it and neighboring houses and without zoning approval; excess noise; and business operations without installation or maintenance of an adequate buffer between the properties.

This Memorandum of Decision is the first decision on motions directed to the pleadings. The Oliver Group filed a Motion to Strike the 3rd, 4th, 7th and 8th counts, which allege claims for public nuisance and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court denied the defendant's motion, on the grounds that the plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded the elements of public nuisance ("the court finds that the plaintiffs' allegations could support a public nuisance claim because they allege excessive noise and traffic congestion that affect rights of members of the general public....") as well as the elements of a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress ("the allegations set forth in the plaintiff's complaint could support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress in that they have alleged that the Oliver Group should have realized that by operating a parking lot in a residential area without a proper buffer would generate excess noise and light that would cause emotional distress to those living in the surrounding area....").

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info:Decision | State, 2nd Circuit, Connecticut | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Scott Camassar, The Law Firm of Stephen M. Reck & Scott D. Camassar | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


The Law Firm of Stephen M. Reck & Scott D. Camassar on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.