*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing 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 Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest 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 the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
GABRIEL COULOUTE ET AL. v. BOARD

OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWN

OF GLASTONBURY ET AL.

(AC 43375)

Elgo, Alexander and Sheldon, Js.

Syllabus

The plaintiffs, G, a high school student, and his mother, sought damages

from the defendants, the Board of Education of the Town of Glastonbury

and several school administrators and educators as a result of injuries

G sustained while playing football at the high school. The plaintiffs had

brought a previous action in connection with G’s injuries in which

the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to strike and thereafter

rendered judgment for the defendants after the plaintiffs failed to

replead. The plaintiffs then appealed to this court but thereafter withdrew the appeal. The defendants in both actions were the same with

the exception of a football coach who was named as a defendant in

each case. The defendants in the present action filed a motion for

summary judgment, claiming that the doctrine of res judicata barred

the present action regardless of any additional facts or different theories

of liability that the plaintiffs alleged. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs’

claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiffs thereafter appealed to this court. Held that the judgment of the trial court

was affirmed, as the issues were properly resolved in that court’s thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision, which this court

adopted as a proper statement of the facts, issues and applicable law.

Argued March 10—officially released April 20, 2021

Procedural History

Action to recover damages for, inter alia, the defendants’ alleged negligence, and for other relief, brought

to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New

Haven and transferred to the judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Hon. Robert B. Shapiro, judge

trial referee, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from

which the plaintiffs appealed to this court. Affirmed.

Mark S. Kliger, with whom, on the brief, was Irving

J. Pinsky, for the plaintiffs (appellants).

Keith R. Rudzik, for the defendants (appellees).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The plaintiffs, Gabriel Couloute and

his mother, April Couloute,1 appeal from the summary

judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the

defendants, the Board of Education of the Town of

Glastonbury; Alan Bookman, Superintendent of Schools;

Nancy E. Bean, Principal of Glastonbury High School

(high school); Trish Witkin, athletic director at the high

school; and Mark Alexander, junior varsity football

coach at the high school. On appeal, the plaintiffs claim

that the court improperly concluded that the doctrine

of res judicata barred the present action. We affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

In 2016, the plaintiffs commenced a civil action (2016

action) regarding injuries that Gabriel allegedly sustained while engaging in interscholastic football activities at the high school during the 2016–2017 school year.

The defendants in that action were identical to those in

the present case, with one exception—Varsity Football

Coach Scott Daniels was named as a defendant instead

of Alexander. In their complaint, the plaintiffs set forth

twenty-four counts alleging battery, fraud, negligence,

due process violations, and violations of the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 1961 et seq. (2012). The defendants filed a motion to

strike the complaint in its entirety, which the court

granted by memorandum of decision dated January 5,

2018. When the plaintiffs failed to replead, the court

rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. Although

the plaintiffs filed an appeal of that judgment with this

court, they subsequently withdrew that appeal.

Approximately two months after they withdrew the

appeal, the plaintiffs initiated the present action. They

alleged twenty counts in their complaint sounding in

negligence and recklessness, all related to a concussion

that Gabriel allegedly sustained while playing football

at the high school on October 20, 2016. The defendants

thereafter moved for summary judgment, claiming that

the judgment in the 2016 action ‘‘was rendered on the

merits, and the doctrine of res judicata is an absolute

bar to this second action on the same matters/causes

of actions and any others that could have been raised

in the [2016 action] regardless of what additional facts

or different theories of liability are raised in this second

action.’’ The plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion,

and the court heard argument from the parties on July

8, 2019. On August 29, 2019, the court issued a memorandum of decision rendering summary judgment in favor

of the defendants, concluding that the doctrine of res

judicata barred the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs now

challenge the propriety of that determination.

Our examination of the pleadings, affidavits, and

other proof submitted, as well as the briefs and arguments of the parties, persuades us that the judgment
should be affirmed. The issues properly were resolved

in the court’s thorough and well reasoned memorandum

of decision. See Couloute v. Board of Education, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV18-6106959-S (August 29, 2019) (reprinted at 203 Conn.

App. 124, A.3d ). We therefore adopt that memorandum of decision as a proper statement of the relevant

facts, issues, and applicable law, as it would serve no

useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained

therein. See Citizens Against Overhead Power Line

Construction v. Connecticut Siting Council, 311 Conn.

259, 262, 86 A.3d 463 (2014); Phadnis v. Great Expression Dental Centers of Connecticut, P.C., 170 Conn.

App. 79, 81, 153 A.3d 687 (2017).

The judgment is affirmed.

1 For clarity, we refer to Gabriel Couloute and April Couloute individually

by their first names and collectively as the plaintiffs.