Page 33 - CLT081020

CONNECTICUT OPINIONS AUGUST 10, 2020 ¦ 33

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE • DAMAGES sentence reduction, finding defendant was not at
risk or vulnerable to the virus.
Court Denies Motion To Dismiss For
Reverse Corporate Veil Piercing Court Uses CDC Guidelines When
Declining Compassionate Release for
CASE: Mirlis v. Edgewood Elm Housing, Inc COVID-19
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-700
COURT OPINION BY: Haight CASE: United States v. Murtha
DATE: July 30, 2020 • PAGES: 27 COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:17-cr-00180
Plaintiff was a student at a religious boarding COURT OPINION BY: Shea
school in Connecticut from 2001 to 2005. In a 2016 DATE: July 27, 2020 • PAGES: 6
underlying action, plaintiff brought a claim alleg-
ing sexual abuse by the dean and head rabbi of the In 2017, defendant pled guilty to wire fraud, and was
school. Plaintiff was awarded compensatory and sentenced to 78 months imprisonment with three
punitive damages, however the judgment went un- years’supervised release. Having served approximate-
satisfied. Plaintiff then brought this action against ly 25 percent of his sentence, defendant moved for
five corporations affiliated with the school and reduction of his sentence or compassionate release
dean in an attempt to satisfy the judgment. Defen- due to risks posed by COVID-19. The court found
dants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing plaintiff that while defendant had exhausted administrative
had not pled sufficient facts to pierce the corpo- remedies, defendant failed to show an extraordinary
rate veil. Citing Longman, the court noted that the or compelling reason to grant release. Defendant
rabbi was in complete control of the corporations. argued that his age, high cholesterol, and potential
The boards of directors had no meetings and took lung damage as a result of asbestos exposure created
no votes, the rabbi was in direct management of severe risk from COVID-19 sufficient to warrant re-
the transfer of assets, and the yeshiva and defen- lease. Using CDC guidelines, the court found insuffi-
dants had the same accountant and shared offic- cient risk to qualify defendant for compassionate re-
es, post office boxes and telephone numbers. The lease. The court noted defendant’s criminal conduct
court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. and the seriousness of the crime when continuing to
impose the sentence, and denied the motion.

CRIMINAL LAW DEALS AND TRANSACTIONS

Court Denies Sentence Reduction In Court Grants Motion To Dismiss CUTPA
Light Of COVID-19 For 43-Year-Old Violation Claim Where Complaint
Inmate With Thrombosis Unrelated to Entrepreneurial Aspects

CASE: United States v. Ferraioli Of Legal Practice
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:18-cr-00027 CASE: Minerva USA, LLC v. McCabe
COURT OPINION BY: Meyer COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DATE: July 27, 2020 • PAGES: 6 DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-1476
In 2018 defendant was sentenced to 6 years im- COURT OPINION BY: Bolden
prisonment following a guilty plea to conspiracy DATE: July 24, 2020 • PAGES: 17
to commit wire and mail fraud, and defendant is Plaintiff hired defendant to provide legal assistance
scheduled for release in September 2022. Defen- on purchasing several residential units. The parties
dant filed a motion for a reduction in his sentence entered into an attorney-client relationship, where-
to due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant in defendant would conduct due diligence, analyze
is 43 years old, has thrombosis and has slightly financial conditions, appraise units, and negotiate
above-average levels of corpuscular hemoglobin, material terms of the purchases. Plaintiff alleged
but is not suffering from symptoms related to these that, at the same time and without disclosing, de-
conditions. Defendant is serving his sentence at a fendant represented a third party and defendant
low security correctional institution where there allowed the third party to purchase the units and
have been no positive cases of COVID-19 to date. flip them to plaintiff at a higher price. Plaintiff filed
The court denied the motion, finding there were complaints for negligence, negligent representation,
no extraordinary or compelling reasons for a breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune