Page 38 - CLT120919

38 ¦ DECEMBER 9, 2019 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

agreed that the court did not have jurisdiction over the defendant could be held responsible under the
that particular claim. Therefore, the court severed sentencing guidelines for the additional two rack-
Count One from the other counts and remanded eteering acts.
Count One only to the Conn. Superior Court. The
court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled
to attorneys’ fees for his motion to remand, because DISCOVERY • CIVIL PROCEDURE

the defendant had an objectively reasonable basis Court Denied In Part Plaintiff’s Motion
for removing this action. The court granted in part To Compel The Deposition Of The
the plaintiff’s motion to remand.

CRIMINAL LAW Mayor Of Hartford

CASE: Squillante v. City of Hartford
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
Court Held Criminal Defendant DOC. NO.: 3:18-cv-01522
Responsible For Two Additional
COURT OPINION BY: Spector
DATE: November 25, 2019 • PAGES: 10
Racketeering Acts
Plaintiff sued the City of Hartford, claiming she
was constructively terminated from her position
CASE: United States v. Ward due to a hostile work environment and being
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:17-cr-00171 subjected to sexual and racial harassment. She
COURT OPINION BY: Shea filed a motion to compel the deposition of the
DATE: November 22, 2019 • PAGES: 27 mayor and the defendant filed a motion for a
Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to engage in a protective order. The court denied plaintiff ’s
pattern of racketeering activity. Defendant admit- motion in part and granted the motion in part
ted to three underlying racketeering acts, but plain- and granted defendant’s motion. The plaintiff
tiff reserved its right to argue that two additional sought to depose the mayor on a number of
racketeering acts should be considered when deter- issues, including whether he was aware of any
mining the appropriate sentencing range under the inadequacy in the city’s sexual harassment poli-
guidelines. Defendant did not agree that the fourth cies. However, because the mayor is a high rank-
and fifth racketeering acts should be used in his ing official, the plaintiff was required to demon-
guidelines calculation. In his plea agreement, de- strate exceptional circumstances warranting the
fendant agreed that “the Court can base its deter- deposition. The court could not find any: mayor
mination [whether to consider the fourth and fifth was not a party to the action, there was noth-
acts] on the evidence previously presented at Fatico ing to indicate that mayor had firsthand knowl-
hearings and any additional evidence or arguments edge of the case, and plaintiff did not show that
made at the time of sentencing.” Each underlying she could not get this information from other
racketeering act was treated as a separate count of sources. Therefore, the court denied this motion
conviction. The court addressed the contested two to compel his testimony. However, the court did
racketeering acts: the attempted murder and the find that the mayor was supposed to appear for
obstruction of justice charges. As to the attempt- his scheduled deposition and failed to do so.
ed murder charge, the court analyzed the evidence Therefore, the court awarded attorneys’ fees for
presented, including Facebook messages that indi- the plaintiff ’s counsel. The court denied in part
cated the defendant’s intent to kill. It found that the plaintiff ’s motion to compel.
the facts supported including the attempted mur-
der as a fourth underlying racketeering act. The
court then turned to the second contested charge EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

of obstruction of justice. The government argued Court Granted Defendant’s Motion For
that one of the defendant’s Facebook posts consti-
tuted obstruction of justice because it was posted Summary Judgment In Employment
with the intent to retaliate against someone for Discrimination Case
having spoken to law enforcement officers. The
court agreed, citing the Facebook posts, the fact CASE: Arroyo v. Hartford Bd. of Educ.
that other Facebook users viewed it as a threat, COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
and the defendant’s own admission in his plea DOC. NO.: 3:17-cv-2067
agreement that he believed “snitching” warranted COURT OPINION BY: Shea
violent retribution. Therefore, the court found that DATE: November 27, 2019 • PAGES: 32

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune