This case involves Shawn Tellado's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or correct his 2007 federal sentence for cocaine conspiracy, in which he was classified as a career offender based on two prior Connecticut narcotics convictions from Alford guilty pleas. The court considered whether the Second Circuit's 2008 decision in United States v. Savage—which held that such Alford pleas under Connecticut law do not qualify as controlled substance offenses under the Sentencing Guidelines—should allow resentencing to a lower range of 92-115 months instead of 188 months. Although the government conceded Savage could apply retroactively and Tellado's classification was erroneous, the court denied relief. The core reasoning centered on the strong societal interest in the finality of judgments outweighing the petitioner's interest in a shorter sentence, particularly given the passage of time since the sentence became final in 2007 and issues with the timeliness of the collateral attack.
This case involves a securities fraud claim by investor Poptech against Stewardship Credit Arbitrage Fund and related entities, including a control person liability claim under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against defendant Paul Seidenwar. The court denied Seidenwar's motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim. Assuming the primary violation claims against the fund and advisors were adequately pled, the court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged Seidenwar's control over the primary violators and his culpable participation in the alleged fraud, based on his role in the entities and knowledge or willful blindness regarding misrepresentations about investment due diligence.
In this case, exotic dancers sued the owners of two Connecticut clubs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state employment laws, alleging they were misclassified as tenants rather than employees entitled to wages. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss class claims based on leases containing arbitration clauses that some of the plaintiffs had signed. The court denied the motion as to one plaintiff because the record showed no agreement to arbitrate, but granted it as to the other two plaintiffs, ordering individual arbitration after the defendants conceded they would not enforce certain provisions; the court reasoned that the agreements were validly formed under Connecticut law, not unconscionable, and that the FAA and recent Supreme Court precedent supported enforcement of the individual arbitration requirement.
This case concerned a third-party claim for common law indemnification under Connecticut law brought by Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. and employee Lorraine Halica against attorney Mark Singer. The claim arose after Finance California sued the title company over its role as escrow agent in an $8 million commercial real estate loan that involved an illusory consulting agreement and undisclosed credit, leading to a settlement with the original plaintiff. A jury found Singer liable as the active tortfeasor, and he moved under Rules 50 and 59 to set aside the verdict or obtain a new trial on grounds including insufficient evidence, erroneous jury instructions, and denial of a continuance. The court denied both motions, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's finding that the third-party plaintiffs were only passive tortfeasors and that no trial errors warranted relief.
This case involves Bank of America seeking a prejudgment remedy against Samuel Klein on his personal guarantee of a $3.2 million loan made by its predecessor to Agrippa, LLC, which was secured by a Manhattan apartment. Klein conceded probable cause for the remedy in the amount of $3 million after agreeing to summary judgment on liability, and the court granted the motion under Connecticut General Statutes § 52-278d. The court found probable cause that a judgment of at least that amount would be rendered in Bank of America's favor, noted that no defenses regarding insurance, exemptions, or bonding were raised, and held that the security interest in the apartment did not bar separate pursuit of the guarantor. The court ordered Klein to disclose assets and allowed the remedy to proceed while the underlying debt amount is resolved in bankruptcy court.
In Smith v. Da Ros, a former Facilities Manager for the Town of Branford sued the town and its First Selectman under Connecticut General Statutes § 31-51q and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging retaliation for his political criticisms of the defendant's handling of land issues and for his political affiliation and campaign support. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims after the plaintiff withdrew his procedural due process claim. The court reasoned that the plaintiff could not establish that his protected speech or political activities were a substantial or motivating factor in the extension of his probationary period or his termination, that the defendants had legitimate non-retaliatory reasons supported by the record, and that there was no evidence of pretext.
