The case involved a dispute between Associated Construction Company and Moliterno Stone Sales, Inc. over a subcontract for building a state criminal court facility in Connecticut, which led to arbitration under the contract's clause and the Federal Arbitration Act. Moliterno received an arbitration award of over $1 million, prompting Associated to seek vacatur of the award in federal court under 9 U.S.C. § 10(d), arguing the arbitrators exceeded their powers by failing to issue written findings of fact as allegedly required by Connecticut General Statutes § 4-126c. Moliterno moved to confirm the award. The court denied the application to vacate and granted confirmation, reasoning that the Federal Arbitration Act provides only narrow grounds for vacatur, arbitrators are not required to explain their awards under federal law or AAA rules, and any failure to provide findings did not constitute manifest disregard of the law or imperfect execution of powers.
This case is a subrogation action by Utica Mutual Insurance Company against Denwat Corporation and Minwax Company after Utica paid over $862,000 to its insured for fire damage allegedly caused by spontaneous combustion of rags used with the defendants' Watco Danish Oil Finish product. Utica asserted claims under Connecticut's Product Liability Act (including for punitive damages), the UCC, and CUTPA. On the defendants' motion to dismiss, the court granted dismissal of the punitive damages claim under the PLA because a subrogee's rights are derivative and limited to actual indemnity for amounts paid to the insured. The court denied dismissal of the UCC claims, finding they are the proper avenue for economic loss and not barred by the PLA, and denied dismissal of the CUTPA claim because it can be pleaded independently of the PLA.
This case involved media plaintiffs challenging a state court judge's order confiscating a courtroom sketch of jurors and barring publication of their likenesses during a high-profile murder trial, seeking a federal preliminary injunction on First Amendment grounds. The federal district court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that Younger abstention did not apply because the plaintiffs were not parties to the state prosecution and their claims would not interfere with it. However, the court denied the preliminary injunction, reasoning that the order was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction necessary to protect the jurors from external pressure and ensure the integrity of the ongoing trial.
The case concerns a plaintiff who, after being hired as a manufacturing engineer and undergoing surgery for a kidney tumor with repeated assurances that his job was secure, was terminated shortly after returning to work; he sued under ERISA Section 510 alleging the discharge was intended to interfere with his health benefits, along with a state-law negligent misrepresentation claim. The defendant moved to dismiss the pendent state claim for lack of jurisdiction and to strike the jury demand on grounds that ERISA actions are equitable. The court denied both motions, holding that the federal and state claims share a common nucleus of operative facts warranting pendent jurisdiction and that the requested compensatory relief (back pay and benefits) is legal in nature, preserving the plaintiff's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
The case involved a lawful resident alien from Jamaica who, after pleading guilty to a state narcotics offense classified as an aggravated felony, was detained by the INS without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) pending a final deportation determination. The petitioner sought habeas corpus relief and a temporary restraining order, arguing that the statute's mandatory detention provision violated procedural and substantive due process by denying any individualized bond hearing. The court denied the motion for reconsideration, holding the statute constitutional on its face. It reasoned that Congress's plenary power over immigration subjects such legislation to limited judicial review, that the government's interest in ensuring the alien's presence at deportation proceedings outweighs the individual's liberty interest, and that existing statutory procedures and habeas remedies provide adequate safeguards against improper application.
This case involved a U.S. citizen mother who brought a Section 1983 action against the Connecticut Commissioner of the Department of Children and Youth Services, alleging that the state agency's seizure of custody over her seven-year-old daughter to authorize surgery for rheumatoid arthritis violated her First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to direct her child's medical care. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Younger abstention doctrine barred federal interference with ongoing state juvenile proceedings. The court denied the motion and assumed jurisdiction, reasoning that abstention did not apply because the plaintiff had not received a full and fair opportunity to present evidence or litigate her constitutional claims in state court, where her proposed expert witness was excluded and only the state's doctor testified. The court further noted that res judicata would not bar the federal action due to the state proceeding's failure to satisfy due process requirements.