Page 34 - CLT072020
P. 34
34 ¦ JULY 20, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS
U.S. DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff moved to enforce the stipulated judgment
against defendant, and defendant moved to re-
form the stipulated judgment. Plaintiff claims that
defendant violated the restrictive covenant and
CIVIL PROCEDURE • FEE DISPUTES quarterly reporting requirements of the stipulated
Court Held There Was Personal Jurisdiction judgment, and moved for a finding of contempt.
Over Defendant That Resides In New York Defendant cross-claimed that the duration of the
restrictive covenant in the stipulated judgment
was a mistake and should be reformed. The court
CASE: Barr and Morgan v. Eljamal granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce and denied de-
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-01455 fendant’s cross-motion. In ruling in the plaintiff’s
COURT OPINION BY: Meyer favor, the court noted that the restrictive covenant
DATE: July 02, 2020 • PAGES: 9
at issue prohibited defendant from engaging in any
Defendant hired plaintiff law firm to represent his business activity that would compete with plaintiff’s
business interests in litigation in New York. Several business. The court stated that there was nothing to
years later, plaintiff sued defendant claiming breach suggest that this covenant, that was agreed upon by
of contract and unjust enrichment after defendant the parties, was unreasonable. In denying the de-
failed to pay legal fees. Defendant moved to dis- fendant’s request for reformation, the court noted
miss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper that neither the length of time of the restriction
venue. The court denied his motion. The court first or the geographical area supported his argument.
analyzed personal jurisdiction. It found that the fac- The court also held that the right to reformation
tors weighed strongly in the plaintiff’s favor; the initial requires mutual mistake; here, there was only a uni-
contract between the parties was executed in Con- lateral mistake on the defendant’s behalf because he
necticut, it involved ongoing dealings with another claims he forgot about the specific terms.
Connecticut law firm, and the state’s long arm statute
allows for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Plain-
tiffs claim there is specific jurisdiction over defendant CRIMINAL LAW
because has sufficient ties with the state by traveling to
Connecticut to execute a Connecticut contract with Court Denied Criminal Defendant’s
Connecticut lawyers. Therefore, he should have ex- Motion For Compassionate Release,
pected that if he did not pay these Connecticut law-
yers, he would be sued in that state. It found there Finding He Has Not Proven He Is At A
was hardly any burden on defendant to litigate in Heightened Risk Of COVID-19
Connecticut. Therefore, it denied defendant’s mo-
tion to dismiss on this basis. As to venue, the court
found Connecticut was proper because the original CASE: United States v. Gionfriddo
agreement was formed in this state and the work was COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
almost exclusively done there as well. The court then DOC. NO.: 3:18-cr-00307
held that the defendant failed to show by clear and COURT OPINION BY: Meyer
convincing evidence why this case should be trans- DATE: July 02, 2020 • PAGES: 7
ferred to New York and why the plaintiff’s choice of
venue should not be respected. Therefore, the court Defendant pled guilty to two counts of mail and
denied the defendant’s motion. wire fraud, and was sentenced to 46 months in
prison. He began serving his sentence in April
2019. In light of the coronavirus, he filed a motion
for early release. The court denied the motion.
CONTRACTS The defendant is 70 years old and claims he suf-
fers from asthma and diabetes. However, various
Court Enforced Stipulated Judgment prison medical records reflect that the defendant
Against Defendant That Required has denied having diabetes. The prison where the
Defendant To Not Engage In Business defendant is housed has not had any positive cases
That Competed With Plaintiff of the virus. The court found that the defendant
had not shown extraordinary and compelling cir-
cumstances; his medical records do not show that
CASE: A Royal Flush, Inc. v. Arias his asthma is severe and there have been no posi-
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut tive cases at his prison. If he were released early,
DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-01206 he would have served less than half of his sentence.
COURT OPINION BY: Bolden Therefore, the court found that the purposes of
DATE: July 02, 2020 • PAGES: 22
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
