Ellen Bree Burns

The case involved a Jaguar dealership, Miller Automobile Corporation, suing manufacturer Jaguar Land Rover North America over the denial of its request to relocate under the terms of their dealer agreement. The plaintiff alleged breaches of contract, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and related claims after the manufacturer conditioned relocation approval on entering a performance agreement for facility upgrades. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all counts, holding that the agreement permitted consideration of any relevant factors in the exercise of good faith business judgment, including the performance agreement condition, and that the plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting bad faith or a viable claim for failure to negotiate in good faith under Connecticut law.

business & regulatory

This case involves Kevin Carter's habeas corpus petition seeking to vacate his 2005 federal convictions and sentence for Hobbs Act robbery, firearm use in a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, all arising from a single jewelry store robbery. Carter moved for reconsideration of the denial of his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge sentence enhancements he received as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and as an armed career criminal under the ACCA, based on five prior convictions identified in his presentence report. The court granted the motion, holding that the enhancements were improper because the prior convictions did not qualify as predicate offenses under the applicable definitions of crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses. The court reasoned that counsel's failure to object to the use of these convictions, including those whose facts were drawn from police reports or were inadequately documented, constituted deficient performance that resulted in actual prejudice by increasing Carter's guideline range to 360 months to life. The decision addresses the retroactive application of relevant precedents interpreting the residual clauses and the requirements for predicate offenses.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Beverly Forde, a Sunni Muslim inmate at the federal women's prison in Danbury, Connecticut, who sought a religious exemption from the Bureau of Prisons policy allowing male officers to conduct routine, non-emergency pat searches of female inmates. Forde argued that such searches violated her sincerely held Islamic beliefs prohibiting physical contact with men outside her immediate family, claiming a substantial burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment. After a bench trial, the court granted her habeas petition and ordered the warden to provide her an individual exemption from non-emergency cross-gender pat searches. The court found that the policy substantially burdened her religious exercise and that prison officials failed to demonstrate a sufficient security-based justification specific to the gender of the searching officer in non-emergency situations, as opposed to staffing or other concerns.

religious libertycriminal lawcivil rights

This case involves the U.S. government's civil forfeiture action against a residential property in Greenwich, Connecticut, purchased by Martin Frankel using funds from his scheme to defraud and launder money from multiple insurance companies in the 1990s. Frankel pleaded guilty to wire fraud, securities fraud, and racketeering, and the government established probable cause that the property was involved in money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957. Two claimants asserted innocent owner defenses: a group of receivers and liquidators for the victimized insurance companies, and an individual named Cheryl Lacoff. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the Receiver-Claimants defeated the forfeiture because the purchase funds were traceable to the looted insurance company assets, establishing their status as innocent owners, while rejecting Lacoff's competing claim in this proceeding.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved a former substitute teacher who sued a school personnel director and the board of education after a newspaper article quoted the director attributing his termination to "obscenity and insubordination" for showing The Simpsons Movie to elementary students, asserting state-law claims for defamation and false light plus a federal stigma-plus claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts. It held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the falsity of the quoted statement, precluding judgment on the defamation-related claims, and that the plaintiff had sufficiently shown a violation of a clearly established constitutional right to defeat qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims against both the individual and the board.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

Beverly Forde, a Muslim woman serving a federal sentence for drug offenses at FCI Danbury, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2243 alleging that prison policies allowing male guards to conduct random pat-down searches, requiring an uncovered identification photograph, and failing to provide a qualified male imam for weekly jum'ah prayers violated her rights under the First and Fourth Amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The district court converted the respondent warden's motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment and granted it in part while denying it in part. The court applied the Turner v. Safley standard to the First Amendment claims, accepting undisputed facts and resolving disputes in the petitioner's favor, and determined that material factual issues remained regarding whether the policies were reasonably related to legitimate penological interests or whether feasible accommodations existed, while resolving other aspects of the claims on the record presented.

religious libertycriminal lawcivil rights

This case was a class action brought by residents of Southbury Training School (STS), a state institution for the mentally disabled, and advocacy organizations challenging the conditions, services, programs, and placement decisions at STS. The plaintiffs alleged violations of substantive due process, the ADA's integration mandate and anti-discrimination provisions, the Rehabilitation Act, and Title XIX of the Social Security Act concerning inadequate medical care, habilitation, safety, restraints, and failure to consider or provide community-based residential settings. After a 123-day bench trial, the court found that the defendants violated the ADA and Section 504 by failing to make sufficient efforts toward community placements for class members, including those with severe disabilities, and by not ensuring informed decision-making by guardians or proper exercise of professional judgment. The ruling drew on evidence from a related DOJ contempt proceeding that documented systemic deficiencies in care and programming at STS, as well as trial testimony showing biases and inadequate assessments in placement processes.

civil rightshealthcare

The case concerned defendant Alan Zaleski's motions to suppress physical evidence found at his residence and post-arrest statements, on grounds that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the statements in violation of Miranda. The court denied both motions. It found that Zaleski voluntarily consented to searches of his truck and property after being informed of the situation, and that his request to speak with a lawyer was limited to advice on whether to consent to a search rather than a broader invocation of the right to counsel during interrogation.

criminal lawprocedure

In Persky v. Cendant Corp., plaintiff Kim Persky alleged that her employer violated the Family and Medical Leave Act by eliminating her position while she was on approved maternity leave and failing to reinstate her, after which she was told her non-acceptance of other roles amounted to resignation. A Connecticut Department of Labor proceeding found in her favor and awarded economic damages totaling $496,344, a ruling affirmed through the state courts. In federal court, Persky moved for liquidated damages under the FMLA on top of the state award. The court granted the motion and awarded the full $496,344, finding that Cendant had not shown it acted in good faith or with objectively reasonable grounds for believing its conduct complied with the statute's reinstatement requirements.

labor & employment

The case involves a challenge by the South Lyme Property Owners Association and individual homeowners to the Town of Old Lyme's 1995 zoning amendments that imposed seasonal use restrictions on single-family dwellings in the R-10 residential district, prohibiting year-round occupancy of certain nonconforming lots. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Connecticut zoning statutes, state and federal constitutional provisions, and the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act. Defendants, members of the zoning commission, moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, after reviewing the history of the regulations, the status of nonconforming uses, and the applicable legal standards for the various claims.

propertycivil rightsenvironment

The case involved a property owners' association and individual owners challenging the Town of Old Lyme's 1995 zoning amendments that imposed seasonal occupancy limits (April 1 to November 15) on dwellings in the R-10 residential district, along with related restrictions on winterization of nonconforming seasonal uses. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Connecticut zoning statutes, the state constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part after reviewing the regulatory history, nonconforming use provisions, and factual record on enforcement and grandfathering.

propertyenvironmentcivil rights

The case concerned the SEC's allegations that defendants William DiBella and North Cove Ventures aided and abetted securities law violations under the Exchange Act and Advisers Act by receiving undisclosed compensation tied to a Connecticut state pension fund's investment in a private equity fund arranged by former state treasurer Paul Silvester, without providing meaningful services. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that the claims were time-barred, that the SEC lacked authority to seek disgorgement, that the disgorgement allegations were factually insufficient, and that the SEC was estopped from proving scienter. The court examined the factual background of the investment deal, the timing of the SEC's action, precedents supporting the SEC's ability to obtain equitable relief such as disgorgement, and related procedural and substantive arguments regarding federal securities enforcement.

business & regulatorycriminal lawfederal powerprocedure

The case concerns claims by Alliance Group Services against its accounting firm Grassi & Co. (formerly TCM), alleging that the firm failed to discover during its audit of Alliance's June 30, 2000 financials that a $250,000 vendor deposit had already been applied to an outstanding balance, resulting in misstated financial statements that Alliance says damaged its business relationship. Alliance brought multiple counts including negligence, breach of contract, fraud, and conversion, based on alleged failures to follow GAAP, GAAS, or the parties' agreement. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion as to the fraud, conversion, and certain other counts due to insufficient evidence or improper legal bases, granted it in part on one count, and denied it as to the negligence and related counts because material factual disputes remained regarding the firm's performance of its audit duties.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Robert Worster suing his former employer Carlson Wagonlit Travel under the ADA, CFEPA, FMLA, and Connecticut law for negligent infliction of emotional distress, claiming discrimination and retaliation based on his Lyme disease diagnosis and use of intermittent medical leave, as well as distress from reassignment, disciplinary actions, and termination. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all counts. It reasoned that the plaintiff had not raised genuine issues of material fact on discrimination or retaliation, that the employer's reassignment to a more flexible role and denial of return to prior duties were consistent with accommodating his leave, and that the employer's conduct was not extreme or outrageous enough to support an emotional distress claim.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

In this case arising from a 2002 motor vehicle accident, defendant Robert Salaf filed an apportionment complaint in Connecticut Superior Court against federal postal employee Hector Carrero, seeking to allocate liability for plaintiff Ernest Gionfriddo's injuries under state apportionment statutes. The United States substituted itself as the apportionment defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679, removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that the state court had lacked jurisdiction over the claim because 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) grants exclusive jurisdiction to federal district courts for Federal Tort Claims Act actions against the United States; under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine, removal therefore conferred no jurisdiction on the federal court. The court dismissed the apportionment complaint and related claims and remanded the action to state court.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

The case concerned efforts by the administrator of a decedent's estate to collect on a $5.7 million wrongful death judgment arising from a 1996 tractor-trailer accident against multiple insurers, including Canal Insurance Company under a policy containing a federally mandated MCS-90 endorsement and other carriers providing contingent coverage. The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment on the ground that the Canal policy remained in force because it had not been canceled in accordance with federal requirements at the time of the accident. Canal countered that a prior state-court declaratory judgment had already determined the policy was properly canceled under state law, extinguishing any duty to indemnify or defend, while the Royal defendants argued that Connecticut law capped their exposure at the statutory minimum of $20,000. The court reviewed the procedural history, including the underlying state trial and Judge Blue's earlier rulings on the duty to defend and costs, and addressed the interplay between state cancellation rules and the federal MCS-90 endorsement in the pending summary-judgment motions.

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Alexander Romagnano sued Connecticut state troopers, the Commissioner of Public Safety, the State of Connecticut, and the Town of Colchester under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights after he was arrested and briefly detained pursuant to a bench warrant issued due to mistaken identity stemming from his cousin's earlier shoplifting arrest. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, holding that the officers had probable cause to arrest based on the facially valid warrant and that their refusal to immediately verify the plaintiff's claims of mistaken identity did not rise to a constitutional violation; without an underlying constitutional violation, there could be no supervisory liability for the commissioner. The court also dismissed the claims against the Town for failure to effect timely service under Rule 4(m).

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Jan Van Eck suing Deputy U.S. Marshal Thomas Gallucci and other federal defendants for false arrest, false imprisonment, larceny, and violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights after he was taken into custody under a capias order issued for his failure to respond to a Department of Transportation subpoena enforcement action. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the entire suit under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). It held that the Bivens constitutional claims failed because no deprivation of a clearly established right was shown and collateral estoppel applied from a prior hearing; sovereign immunity barred claims against the United States and its agencies; state-law tort claims lacked merit; and claims against the unnamed John Doe defendants were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The opinion applied standard Rule 12(b)(6) review, taking allegations as true but finding no valid grounds for relief.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal lawtorts & liability

The case arose when two elderly doctors sued multiple federal officials after their adult son, while complying with a federal subpoena in a DOT enforcement action and escorted by defendants, retrieved documents from a building that also housed the plaintiffs' medical practice; the claims included FTCA torts, state-law torts such as trespass and assault, Bivens constitutional violations under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and respondeat superior liability. On the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court held that most claims failed as a matter of law. It dismissed the FTCA claims because one plaintiff missed the six-month filing deadline after agency denial and the other failed to exhaust administrative remedies, applied the FTCA's exclusion for intentional torts, found the state tort claims barred by the Westfall Act's substitution of the United States and immunity rules, and dismissed the Bivens claims against most defendants and all John Doe defendants on statute-of-limitations grounds under Connecticut law. However, the court denied dismissal of the Fourth Amendment Bivens claims against three specific defendants, concluding that those allegations, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, presented issues that could not be resolved on the pleadings alone and required factual development.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

In Spector v. Experian Information Services Inc., plaintiff Rachel Spector sued Wachovia Bank Card Services under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and related state and federal laws, claiming Wachovia failed to properly investigate her dispute regarding a credit card account reported as an individual obligation discharged in her husband's bankruptcy despite her assertion that she was only an authorized user. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the FCRA claim. The court granted Wachovia's motion and denied the plaintiff's as moot, holding that Spector presented no evidence of actual damages or willful noncompliance as required by the FCRA. The ruling was based on the statutory requirement that plaintiffs prove damages and on the absence of any record showing Wachovia deviated from its standard procedures in handling the dispute.

business & regulatoryprocedure