Order | Filed: August 04, 2026
| Entered: August 04, 2026
Klaneski v. Hand2Note Software Ltd
Other Statutory Actions | Connecticut
Order on Motion to Dismiss
ORDER Dismissing Case With Prejudice.
Self-represented Plaintiff, Ms. Rosa Lee Klaneski, filed the instant lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, compensatory damages, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees based on allegations that Defendant invaded her privacy and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act under the Connecticut General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. (CUTPA). ECF No. 1, pp. 5-6.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Klaneski's complaint, arguing that Plaintiff's claims are barred by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) and are also untimely under the applicable statute of limitation periods. ECF No. 14, pp. 1-2.
This court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the respective statute of limitation periods. The court declines to analyze whether Plaintiff's claims are barred by 47 U.S.C. § 230 as it is "well accepted that, where a sufficient basis exists for dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint on statute of limitations grounds, the [c]ourt need not address the merits of their claims." Clarke v. United States, 367 F.Supp.3d 72, 76 (S.D.N.Y., 2019) (internal brackets and quotations omitted) (quoting Young v. GM Inv. Mgmt. Corp., 550 F.Supp.2d 416, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).
Analysis:
Plaintiff's common law invasion of privacy claim and CUTPA claims both must be brought within three years after the occurrence of a violation. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577 (providing a three-year statute of limitations for the tort of invasion of privacy); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(f) (providing a three-year statute of limitations for actions brought under CUTPA).
"Although the statute of limitations is ordinarily an affirmative defense that must be raised in the answer, a statute of limitations defense may be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion if the defense appears on the face of the complaint." Klaneski v. Bristol Hosp., Inc., No. 3:22-CV-1158 (VAB), 2023 WL 4304925, *1, *6 (D. Conn. June 30, 2023) (quoting Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. BioHealth Lab'ys, Inc., 988 F.3d 127, 131-32 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Here, Ms. Klaneski alleges in her Complaint filed in 2025 that the events underlying her invasion of privacy and CUTPA claims occurred "[s]ome time in 2010," ECF No. 1, p. 3, para. 11 (filed Feb. 28, 2025). Defendant's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 14, alleges the underlying events occurred sometime around January 28, 2010, as illustrated by Exhibit 3 of the complaint. See ECF No. 14, p. 6. Ms. Klaneski's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss does not contest Defendant's representation about the specific violation date, nor does Plaintiff meaningfully respond to Defendant's statute of limitations claims. See ECF No. 16, pp. 16-21.
Based on the face of the Complaint, Ms. Klaneski was required to bring her invasion of privacy and CUTPA claims by January 28, 2013, or by December 31, 2013, at the very latest since the underlying violations occurred, according to her, "Some time in 2010." ECF No. 1, p. 3, para. 11.
Plaintiff did not timely raise her claims. Under Connecticut law, "an action is brought, or commenced, when the writ is served upon the defendant." Chestnut Point Realty, LLC v. Town of E. Windsor, 324 Conn. 528, 540 (2017); see also Shlafer v. Wackenhut Corp., 837 F. Supp. 2d 20, 24 (D. Conn. 2011) ("As the Court is exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's CFEPA claims, state law applies for purposes of determining when an action is commenced."). Defendant was served on June 18, 2025, ECF No. 11 eleven to twelve years after the applicable statutes of limitations began on either January 28, 2013, or December 31, 2013. Accordingly, Ms. Klaneski's invasion of privacy and CUTPA claims must be dismissed with prejudice as untimely because they were not raised within the three-year statute of limitation periods as required under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577 for common law invasion of privacy claims and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(f) for CUTPA claims.
The Clerk of Court respectfully is asked to please terminate this case.
It is so ordered.
Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 8/4/2026. (KM)