Case Background
Roger Rosendahl, a longtime resident of Greenwich, filed a civil lawsuit against Riverside Service Inc. and its affiliates, an auto repair workshop. The case was filed in the Superior Court of Stamford on February 14, 2025. Rosendahl represented himself. He named the business owner, Albert Jagodzinski and mechanic Frank Calka among the Defendants, along with 20 unnamed individuals. He had been a customer of Riverside Service for over 25 years.
Events Leading to the Legal Dispute
The dispute arose from Rosendahl’s allegation of systemic fraud. He accused Riverside of billing for unnecessary or unperformed services. Tensions between him and the company escalated over time. The breaking point came on August 27, 2023, when Riverside allegedly refused to provide a jump-start for his vehicle. Rosendahl saw the refusal as a breach of service expectations and warranty, connecting it to earlier unresolved complaints regarding billing practices and lack of service transparency.
Plaintiff’s Injuries and Their Impact
Following the incident, Rosendahl remained confined to his home. He reported being unable to care for his dog or drive. Emotional distress became a significant concern. He directly linked the service refusal to his grief and frustration. Years of alleged overcharging and lack of transparency had compounded his emotional burden. According to Rosendahl, the incident marked a breaking point in a long-standing pattern of mistreatment.
Claimed Damages
Rosendahl demanded $500,000 in compensatory damages. He also sought punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. He had purchased a battery charger and rented a car as temporary solutions. His complaint emphasized emotional suffering and long-term financial strain. A jury trial was requested for all claims.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Roger Rosendahl
Counsel for Plaintiff: Self-Represented
Expert Witness for Plaintiff: Jacob Sarvic
Defendant(s): Riverside Service Inc. | Albert Agodzinski | Frank Calka
Counsel for Defendants: Dirk D. Bender
Claims
Roger Rosendahl, a long-time customer, sued Frank Calka, Albert Jagodzinski, and Riverside Service Inc., accusing them of breaching his trust through negligence, intentional emotional harm, dishonest dealings, false repair claims, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). Despite years of loyal service, he said they charged him for unnecessary repairs, withheld key information, and refused help during a car emergency.
Roger sought compensation for financial loss and emotional distress, along with punitive damages to hold the Defendants accountable. His case underscored the duty of care owed to loyal customers and called for fair, honest practices in the auto repair industry.
Defense
The Defendants firmly denied all the accusations and said they weren’t responsible for any of the damages the Plaintiff was claiming. They insisted they hadn’t done any unauthorized repairs, misrepresented prices, or provided unnecessary services. They also denied ever threatening the Plaintiff or intentionally causing harm.
Both Riverside Service Inc. and Defendant Frank Calka said all their conversations and actions with the Plaintiff were professional and part of normal business.
Their lawyers argued that the Plaintiff didn’t present enough evidence to prove fraud, emotional distress, or negligence. They also said that even if the Plaintiff experienced any harm, it wasn’t caused by the Defendants. On top of that, they pointed out that some of the claims were tied to events that happened too long ago and should be dismissed under Connecticut’s statute of limitations.
Jury Verdict
On April 2, 2025, the jury found in favor of all defendants on each of the plaintiff’s claims. They concluded that Riverside Service Inc., Albert Jagodzinski, and Frank Calka were not liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or negligence.
The jury determined that Plaintiff Roger Rosendahl failed to prove his allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. As a result, they awarded no damages. The verdict fully absolved the defendants of legal and financial responsibility in the matter.