Suit Alleges New Haven Mayor Singled Out Restaurant Amid COVID-19 Fears
The first federal lawsuit in Connecticut involving COVID-19 alleges the mayor of New Haven misled viewers of the state's ABC affiliate into thinking a restaurant that hosted events for his political adversaries was doing business in violation of state restrictions on large gatherings.
April 07, 2020 at 03:11 PM
3 minute read
The owners of a New Haven restaurant have filed a COVID-19-related federal lawsuit in Connecticut, alleging the city's mayor maligned the business, often used as a gathering place for events for the mayor's political adversaries, on television over the coronavirus.
Michael Amato and Joy Monsanto, owners of 50′s Lounge LLC, filed suit Friday. They allege New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker went on WTNH-TV, the state's ABC affiliate, on March 20 claiming 50′s Lounge had been operating in violation of Gov. Ned Lamont's rules on how many people can occupy restaurants during the pandemic.
The lounge owners said there was a March 14 birthday party at the restaurant. They said they volunteered to close their doors the next day. Then on March 16, the governor banned gatherings of 50 people or more. The controls continued, when on March 26, Lamont announced no gatherings of more than five would be permitted except for religious and social gatherings.
The lawsuit also looks at the constitutionality of Lamont's limits on gatherings, as well as the mayor's 10-person limit on gatherings. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages. It alleges defamation, invasion of privacy by false light, violation of constitutional rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress and reckless infliction of emotional distress.
In addition to the mayor, Lamont is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Also named as a defendant is a "mayor's representative," who is not identified.
Representing the lounge owners is Kevin Smith of the New Haven firm Pattis & Smith. He declined to comment on the lawsuit Tuesday, which said, in part, "Rather than rising to the opportunity to lead during a legitimate heath crisis, Mayor Elicker instead weaponized growing fears about the pandemic to brutally attack the plaintiffs' and their business in a vulnerable time, hoping to curry favor with certain sectors of the electorate who had opposed the plaintiff's establishment, while simultaneously seeking retribution for the plaintiffs' support of his political rivals."
The lawsuit continues: "The defendants knew that the plaintiffs had closed proactively on March 15, and yet they accused the plaintiffs of criminal conduct in an outrageous effort to not only directly interfere with the plaintiffs' business, but to cripple it entirely."
Gage Frank, the mayor's director of communications, and David Bednarz, Lamont's spokesman, had no comment on the lawsuit Tuesday.
Attorneys from the Office of Connecticut Attorney General William Tong will represent the defendants in court.
In a statement emailed to the Connecticut Law Tribune, Tong said, "Our state constitution and state laws grant the Governor broad authority to protect Connecticut residents and families in a public health emergency, and his executive orders have been very clearly constitutional and fully legally justified."
The lawsuit states the orders from Lamont and Elicker putting a cap on crowd size is unconstitutional.
The lawsuit states, "Defendant Ned Lamont's order limiting the number of people who may attend a gathering are unconstitutional restrictions on the plaintiffs' liberty and right to assemble under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, because it is neither necessary nor carefully tailored to address the purported public health need."
The case is scheduled to be heard in front of Judge Victor Bolden.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readApple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
State High Court Adopts Modern Standard for Who Keeps $70K Engagement Ring After Breakup
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250