The case involves multiple plaintiffs suing DirectBuy, Inc., and its parent companies for alleged fraud in membership pricing practices, including RICO claims, common law fraud, and violations of various state consumer protection statutes, based on the failure to disclose rebates and discounts from suppliers. Defendants moved to transfer the Wilson, Harris, and Vance cases from the District of Connecticut to the Northern District of Indiana under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court granted the motions to transfer, finding that the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice favored transfer because the defendants are headquartered in Indiana, relevant documents and witnesses are located there, and the claims arise from business operations centered in Indiana, with no strong countervailing factors in Connecticut.
The case concerned a married couple with a newborn child who purchased a one-bedroom condominium unit subject to an occupancy policy limiting each unit to two persons per bedroom; after the defendants enforced the policy against the family and cited a nonexistent fire code violation, the Gashis sold their unit and sued under the Fair Housing Amendments Act alleging both disparate impact and an unlawful discriminatory statement. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the disparate-impact claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b), holding that the policy had a statistically significant adverse effect on families with children and that the defendants offered no evidence of any structural, safety, or code-based justification. The court denied summary judgment on the § 3604(c) claim arising from the enforcement letter, finding a triable issue of fact as to whether an ordinary reader would perceive the statement identifying the tenants as “two adults and a child” as expressing an impermissible preference. The ruling addressed only liability and left damages and other counts for later proceedings.
The Chabad Lubavitch of Litchfield County and Rabbi Joseph Eisenbach sued the Borough of Litchfield and its Historic District Commission after the HDC denied their application to modify a building they purchased in a historic district to accommodate growing religious needs. Defendants moved to dismiss Rabbi Eisenbach for lack of standing and sought judgment on the pleadings on multiple counts while challenging the constitutionality of RLUIPA. The court granted the motion to dismiss Rabbi Eisenbach, finding he lacked a qualifying property interest under RLUIPA, but denied judgment on the pleadings for the other counts and upheld RLUIPA as constitutional under Second Circuit precedent.
The case involves plaintiff Teshema Lucy suing defendant Bay Area Credit Services LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act arising from a collection letter seeking an unauthorized fee on a debt originally owed to AT&T. Bay Area Credit moved to compel arbitration and stay the litigation under the Federal Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration clause in Lucy's separate wireless services agreement with AT&T. The court denied the motion because Bay Area Credit was not a signatory to the AT&T agreement, had no corporate affiliation or close relationship with AT&T, and could not invoke equitable estoppel to enforce arbitration absent any indication that Lucy intended to arbitrate disputes with Bay Area Credit.
The case concerns a class action Title VII lawsuit brought by Cherie Easterling and other female applicants for Correction Officer positions with the Connecticut Department of Correction, alleging that the physical fitness test—particularly the 1.5-mile run component with gender- and age-specific passing times set at the 40th percentile—created a disparate impact on women. Statistical evidence showed women passing the run at rates of 58.7% to 62.8% compared to 82% to 83.5% for men across test administrations. The court evaluated cross-motions for summary judgment on liability, focusing on whether the test was job-related and consistent with business necessity. It reasoned that percentile-based standards alone do not establish the minimum qualifications needed for successful job performance without evidence correlating test results to actual duties like inmate control and facility security.
The case involved plaintiff Rashad Ahmad Refaat El Badrawi, a Lebanese-Egyptian citizen who had lived and worked lawfully in the U.S. on an H-1B visa, being arrested in October 2004 for allegedly overstaying his visa, detained for nearly two months including 42 days after agreeing to voluntary departure, and subjected to questioning about alleged extremist ties. El Badrawi sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for false arrest and abuse of process related to his detention. The court denied the United States' motion for summary judgment on both claims, granted El Badrawi's motion for summary judgment on the false arrest claim, and denied it on the abuse of process claim, finding that the arrest and detention lacked legal basis under applicable immigration regulations providing for automatic extensions of stay.
