Alfred V. Covello

In Pugliese v. United Technologies Corp., a longtime employee sued her employer under ERISA and state contract law, alleging that human resources representatives made misleading statements about retirement benefits under a union pension plan and that her supervisor failed to honor a promise to keep her on payroll after she retired early. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing there were no genuine disputes of material fact on the issues of agency, material misrepresentations, or contract formation. The district court denied the motion, holding that questions of whether the HR representatives acted with apparent authority and whether their statements constituted misrepresentations raised triable issues of fact. The court also found that the existence and terms of any implied contract with the supervisor presented factual questions that could not be resolved on summary judgment.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a civil antitrust lawsuit brought by the bankruptcy trustee of a parcel tanker shipping company against competitors, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate customers, and engage in predatory pricing on international chemical shipping routes in violation of the Sherman Act and related state laws, which allegedly drove the plaintiff's business out of operation. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing and failure to state a claim, and after the court initially denied the motion in part, they sought reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's Twombly decision on pleading standards. The court granted reconsideration and dismissed the remaining conspiracy claims, reasoning that the complaint contained only conclusory allegations without sufficient facts to plausibly show entitlement to relief, and that the defendants' prior criminal guilty pleas involved different routes and conduct not indicative of predatory pricing here.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit brought by Walter Oliver, a church pastor, against police detectives under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that his arrest for administering corporal punishment to children violated his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights because it lacked probable cause and was motivated by disapproval of his religious beliefs. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the allegations, particularly regarding the omission of religious context from the arrest warrant, failed to state a valid constitutional claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and religious discrimination under section 1983, including that the arrest was intentional, without probable cause, and conducted under color of law, and that Oliver was later acquitted. The court reasoned that federal pleading rules require only a short and plain statement giving fair notice of the claims, which the complaint provided, even if concise.

civil rightsreligious libertycriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a motion for a preliminary injunction by Pirtek USA, LLC, against former franchisee Irwin Zaetz, his company HHS, and related parties including Peter Zaetz and Hose Medic, LLC. Pirtek sought to prevent alleged trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, violation of a two-year non-compete covenant in the franchise agreement, and breaches of post-termination obligations following the April 2005 termination of the agreement. The court denied the motion after a hearing, finding that while Pirtek showed a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the covenant not to compete, it failed to demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be addressed by monetary damages. The court also rejected claims of ongoing trademark infringement and post-termination violations due to lack of evidence of continuing harm.

business & regulatory

This case involves plaintiffs who purchased and resold chemicals from defendants including Union Carbide and Dow, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act along with breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation after the defendants allegedly altered their distribution arrangements following a merger. The plaintiffs moved to vacate a prior order that had dismissed defendants UCCS and Dow Singapore for lack of personal jurisdiction, based on additional evidence from jurisdictional discovery showing the defendants' involvement in sales to the U.S. market and coordination with U.S.-based entities. The court granted the motion, holding that it possesses personal jurisdiction over UCCS and Dow Singapore. The decision rested on findings that the defendants purposefully availed themselves of the U.S. forum through substantial and continuous sales activity, that the claims arose from those contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable given the antitrust context and the presence of related U.S. defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a challenge by Connecticut officials, including the governor, to a recommendation by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission to realign the 103rd Fighter Wing by relocating its A-10 aircraft out of state without the governor's consent. The plaintiffs claimed the recommendation violated federal statutes, including 32 U.S.C. § 104(c), which prohibits changes to the branch, organization, or allotment of a National Guard unit located entirely within a state without gubernatorial approval. The court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction, barring the Commission from forwarding the recommendation to the President. The decision was based on the conclusion that relocating the aircraft would effect a change in the unit's organization and allotment without the required consent, and that the BRAC process did not nullify the statutory mandate for gubernatorial approval.

federal power

This case involves a claim by Philip Glynn, beneficiary of a group accident insurance policy issued by Bankers Life and Casualty Company under an ERISA-governed employee welfare plan, seeking benefits after his son Peter died in a single-car accident with a blood alcohol level of 0.17%. Bankers denied the claim, interpreting the policy's undefined term 'accident' to exclude the death because it occurred while driving intoxicated. The court reviewed the denial de novo because the policy language was too vague to grant Bankers discretionary authority under Second Circuit precedent. It concluded that federal common law treats such a death as accidental if the insured had a reasonable expectation of survival, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, and held that the plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies due to inadequate notice of appeal procedures in the summary plan description and a showing of futility.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which Scott Diaz challenged his 210-month sentence for felon-in-possession of a firearm, imposed after the court applied an Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement based on three prior convictions. The court granted the motion, finding that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge two of those prior convictions (robbery and weapons possession) on the ground that they were obtained without counsel in violation of Gideon v. Wainwright. The core reasoning was that counsel's advice to pursue challenges only in state court was deficient, and that the petitioner was prejudiced because those uncounseled convictions could not properly serve as ACCA predicates, as shown by newly presented records demonstrating the absence of counsel.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involved former vice presidents of Competitive Technologies, Inc. who claimed their employment was terminated in retaliation for raising concerns about the company's financial reporting practices, in violation of the whistleblower protections in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. After the Secretary of Labor issued a preliminary order requiring their reinstatement, the company refused to comply and challenged the court's authority to enforce it. The court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the Secretary's preliminary reinstatement order under the Act. It further ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief to compel reinstatement based solely on the Secretary's findings, without needing to satisfy the traditional elements for a preliminary injunction, drawing on the statutory scheme and precedents like Brock v. Roadway Express.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a consumer's lawsuit against an attorney acting as a debt collector, alleging that he violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and related Connecticut statutes by sending a letter to collect on dishonored checks. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability, claiming the letter was false or misleading under FDCPA section 1692e because it used the attorney's name and signature without any personal review or involvement by him in deciding to send it or determining its contents. The court first rejected the argument that a prior pending lawsuit on a similar letter barred the current action. It then granted the motion, holding that the FDCPA requires meaningful attorney involvement for such letters, including the signing attorney's personal professional judgment, which was absent here even if another attorney had reviewed the file.

business & regulatory

This case involved two former employees of Pepperidge Farm, Twanya Presley and Sofia Tsharides, who sued the company and their supervisor under Title VII and Connecticut state law, alleging a gender-hostile work environment, sexual discrimination, retaliation, negligent misrepresentation in company policies, civil conspiracy, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting no genuine issues of material fact existed on any claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that Presley had raised triable issues on her hostile work environment and gender discrimination claims based on evidence of the supervisor's conduct and the company's response, but dismissing all claims by Tsharides and the remaining claims by Presley due to insufficient evidence of retaliation, policy misrepresentations, conspiracy, or emotional distress tied to the employment relationship.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves a lawsuit by Crown Theaters against architect James Martino and his firm for breach of contract and professional negligence, alleging that Martino improperly certified construction work as complete when it was not, allowing embezzlement by another party. Martino filed counterclaims seeking contribution or apportionment based on Crown's alleged wrongful conduct and for unjust enrichment due to unpaid architectural services. The court granted summary judgment to Crown on the first counterclaim, ruling that Connecticut common law prohibits contribution among joint tortfeasors. It denied summary judgment on the unjust enrichment counterclaim, finding genuine issues of fact regarding whether Martino expected payment for services provided to Crown and its executives.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a father suing Connecticut DCF employees and the agency under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADA, and state tort claims, alleging that they violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by investigating and removing his newborn daughter from his custody without due process or proper justification. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all federal claims, concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were objectively reasonable, the plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact on Fourth Amendment or ADA claims, Eleventh Amendment immunity barred suits against the state agency and officials in their official capacities, and the plaintiff lacked standing for injunctive relief. The court also dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice after resolving the federal questions. The opinion rests on undisputed facts showing that hospital staff reported concerns about the infant's health and the mother's capacity, prompting a DCF investigation and temporary removal that was later addressed through neglect proceedings.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case was an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by Linda Ungerleider against her former employer, Fleet Mortgage Group, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to accommodate her disability, subjected her to harassment and adverse actions because of her religion and disability, and retaliated against her for taking medical leave, ultimately leading to her constructive discharge. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment after finding no genuine issues of material fact on any of the claims, including whether the employer's actions were pretextual or whether the plaintiff was timely in asserting retaliation. It separately denied the defendant's motion for sanctions against the plaintiff for procedural noncompliance. The core reasoning was that the evidence in the record, including performance reviews and deposition testimony, did not support the existence of triable factual disputes under the applicable legal standards.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Omega Engineering, Inc. alleging that Omega S.A. breached a prior contractual agreement settling disputes over the use of OMEGA trademarks on products such as timers. After the parties reported a settlement on May 19, 2003, following a court-ordered conference, Omega Engineering moved to enforce the agreement. The court granted the motion to enforce, concluding that the parties had reached a binding oral agreement during the conference with authorized representatives present, and that the defendant's later objections lacked merit under contract law principles. The request for attorneys' fees was denied without sufficient supporting evidence.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves claims by several companies that purchased and resold chemical products from Union Carbide and Dow Chemical, alleging that the defendants conspired to fix minimum resale prices for those products in India in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, along with related state-law claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The defendants moved to dismiss the federal antitrust claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA), arguing that the alleged conduct did not have the required direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on U.S. commerce. The court denied the motion, holding that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged both that the defendants' price-fixing conduct affected competition in and from the United States and that this effect on U.S. commerce gave rise to the plaintiffs' injuries, thereby satisfying the FTAIA's jurisdictional requirements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a high school student who sued school officials, the board of education, and the town under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a strip search of her person for suspected marijuana possession violated her Fourth Amendment rights, along with related state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the search was reasonable and that they were entitled to immunity. The court granted the motion, holding that the search was justified at its inception by a credible report from a student office aide about the plaintiff's planned concealment of drugs, combined with the plaintiff's disciplinary history and evasive demeanor, and that its scope was reasonable because it was limited, conducted privately by the plaintiff's mother in the presence of a female nurse in a partitioned area, and aimed at preventing drug-related harm during an off-campus school event. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents recognizing the strong governmental interest in addressing drug possession in schools and found no genuine issues of material fact. Because the federal claims were resolved, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

civil rights

This case involved a former employee, Donna Jute, who sued her employer, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Connecticut state law, alleging retaliation through adverse actions such as removal from a work team, denial of promotions and other opportunities, and eventual job termination. The retaliation claims stemmed from Jute's prior opposition to sexual harassment, her provision of statements in an investigation related to a gender discrimination lawsuit by a coworker, and her own filing of a retaliation charge. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no genuine issues of material fact existed. The court granted the motion, concluding that Jute failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, including the required causal connection between her protected activities and the alleged adverse employment actions, and that the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved an insurance company's request for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendant in a state court lawsuit arising from a fatal car accident. The accident occurred when the defendant's deceased son, who held only a learner's permit, drove a non-owned vehicle without the owner's permission and crashed, injuring another passenger. The court granted summary judgment to the insurer, concluding that the son did not qualify as an insured under the policy because he lacked express or implied permission to operate the vehicle and could not have reasonably believed he had such permission, given his unlicensed status and the circumstances. The policy's definition of coverage for non-owned automobiles required both permission from the owner and operation within the scope of that permission.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

Gerardo Guerrero, a black male social worker employed by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families, brought this Title VII action alleging that the agency discriminated against him on the basis of race and created a hostile work environment. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It concluded that Guerrero had not raised a genuine issue of fact showing that any adverse actions, including discipline and termination, were motivated by race rather than his documented performance deficiencies in areas such as call handling, documentation, and customer service. The court further found no evidence that the disciplinary policy was applied unevenly to him compared with similarly situated employees.

labor & employmentcivil rights