Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Dillon Stadium Lawsuit

    Transféré par

    kevinhfd
    4K vues47 pages
    Dillon Stadium Lawsuit

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Dillon Stadium Lawsuit

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    4K vues47 pages

    Dillon Stadium Lawsuit

    Transféré par

    kevinhfd
    Dillon Stadium Lawsuit

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 47
    RETURN DATE: MAY 10, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT CITY OF HARTFORD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF vs. HARTFORD AT HARTFORD PREMIER SPORTS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; MITCHELL D. ANDERSON; BLACK DIAMOND CONSULTING GROUP LLC; JAMES C. DUCKETT, JR BRUEN DELDIN DIDIO ASSOCIATES, INC. SCOTT HAINEY; JEFFREY DELDIN APRIL 15, 2016 COMPLAINT 1. The plain, City of Hartford the “City”, is a Conneticut municipality ‘The defendant, Premier Sports Management Group LLC (“PSMG"), isa Connecticut imited liability company with its prinipal place of business at 23 Grandview Drive, Farmington, Connecticut 3. The defendant, Mitchell Anderson (*Anderson”) isan individual who resides at23A Grandview Drive, Farmington, Connecticut, Atall times televant to this action, Anderson was a member and/or President of PSMG. 4. The defendant, Black Diamond Consulting Group LLC ("Black Diamond”), isa Connecticut limited liability company with a principal place of business at 110 Long Hill Drive, Somers, Connecticut, 5. The defendant, James C. Duckett, Jr (“Docket i an individual who resides at 100 Long Hill Drive, Somers, Connecticut, Atal mes elevant to this action, Duckett was a ‘member of Black Diamond 6. The defendant, Bruen Deldin DiDio Associates, Ine, ("BD") is a New York ‘corporation and Conneticut licensed insurance producer with an offic at 750 Old Main Stee, Rocky Hil, Connecticut 7. The defendant, Scott Hainey (Hainey"), is a Connecticut licensed insurance producer who at all times relevant o this action was a Vie President st BDD. Hainey resides at 44 Pepperbush Drive, Amston, Connecticut, 8 The defendant, Jeffiey Deldin (“Delain”), i a Conneticut Hicensed insurance producer wio at ll imes relevant o this action was a Vie President at BDD. Deli resides at 79 Pine Hill Road, New Fairfield, Connecticut, und, ‘The Request for Proposal 9. In May 2014, the City issued a request for proposal (“RFP”) seeking bids for the ‘management of the redevelopment of Dillon Stadium, a sports stadium situated in Hartford; the development ofan athletic field in the nearby Colt Park; and the procurement of a professional or semi-professional soccer team to be based in the new Dillon Stadium (“Dillon Project”). The RFP required that the successful bidder shall furnish insurance coverage within ten (10) days from notice of the award naming the City as an additional insured and that said coverage must be seetion 3.17. updated and kept curtent throughout the life ofthe contract, RF 10, Defendant PSMG, through defendant Anderson, responded tothe REP forthe Dillon Projet on or about May 28, 2014, 11, nits response, PSMG provided the City with « Cerificate of Liability Insurance issued by Ohio Mutual Insurance ("Ohio Mutual”) that identified PSMGGas the insured and listed the City asa Cerificate Holder and addtional insured (“Ohio Mutual Cerifiate"). The Ohio ‘Mutual Cetficate listed the poliey period as May 27,2014 dough May 27,2015 12, ‘The Ohio Mutual Cerifiete listed the defendants BDD and Hainey asthe “Produce,” and bore the signature ofthe defendant Deldin as the “authorized representative.” The rent 13, ‘The City selected PSMG forthe Dillon Project and in doing so relied on the contents of PSMG's respons, including that it was qualified to manage the Pillon Project and ‘properly insured with a policy listing the City a an atonal insured 14, ‘The City and PSMG entered into a “Professional Services Contract #5538 by and between the City of Harford and Premier Sports Management Group, LLC for Management of Dillon Stadium,” dated September 18, 2014 (he “Ageeement”), A copy of the Agreement, designated as Exhibit 1, shall be served on all appearing parties and filed with this court pursuant to section 10-29 of the Practice Book 15, The scope of PSMG's services under the Agreement consisted of three phases: (i) procurement of a professional or semi-professional soccer franchise tobe based in the new Dillon Stadium: (i) management of the redevelopment of Dillon Stadium; and (ii) management ofthe development ofthe Cot Park athlete field 16, The Agreement provided PSMG six months from execution to procure the anchor soccer team. Iit failed todo o, the City had the option o change andor reduce the scope of the ‘work fr the Pillon Projet. 17, ‘The total eos ofthe Dillon Project was $12,000,000, with total management fee ‘not to exceed $775,000 to be pad to PSMG. ‘The Insurance Certificates 18, Asacondition ofthe Agreement, PSMG was required to have and maintain insurance coverage nang the City a an aditonal insured. Pursuant o section 7.2(10) ofthe Agreement, sad coverage “mus be effective prior tothe commencement of work and must remain in force until termination of work under this Agreement." 19, As the City nd PSMG were finalizing the Agreement, Anderson represented 10 the City in an email onthe moming on September 18,2014, that the “Certificate of Insurance ‘covering all aspects of our contract i being generated as we peak.” 20. i another email late that afternoon, Anderson told the City “My agent will ave them over tome first thing inthe morning. Iwill send them over to you as well, My agent was lsaveling to his other office in Rhode Island today and wanted to handle this himself rather than having his assistant. [also wanted to make sure everything met the requirements of our contract” 21, Themext moming, Anderson forwarded an emai to the City from Colleen (0°Connor at BDD, attaching a Certificate of Liability Insurance identifying PSMG as the insured, under Policy Number BOP0082763, with Providence Mutual Fite Insurance Company Providence Mutual” listed asthe insurer (the “Providence Mutual Certificate”). Like the Ohio Mutual Certificate given to the City in May as part of PSMG's REP response, tis certfiate listed defendants BDD and Hainey as the producer, and bore the signature ofthe defendant DDeldin as the authorized representative, Also, the City is listed asa eetificate holder, the “additional insured” box is checked, and it states that “the City of Hartord is hereby listed as an additional insure as required (sic] writen contract.” 22, The City continued forward with PSMG, reasonably relying on BDD's representation that PSMG was insured and insurable a al relevant ines, including as of September 18, 2014, and that the City was listed as an additonal insured. 23, The City subsequently eared that defendants PSMG, Anderson, BDD and DD's officers Haney and Deldin falsely represented @ that PSMG was insured and (i that the City was listed as an additional insured 24, While PSMG had had a policy with Obio Mutual effective May 27,2014, the policy didnot name the City 3s an ditional inured, as PSMG and BDD represented. More ‘importantly, the policy was cancelled, effective September 5, 2014, because of Ohio Mutual's stated reason that PSMG did not meet its underiting criteria, 25. BD and PSMG received immediate notice ofthe cancellation, but never notified the City thatthe policy was cancelled the reasons forthe cancellation or that PSMG was not insured as required by the Agreement 26. Less than two weeks later and after repeated requests by the City to PSMG for a cetificate to include with the Agreement, BDD issued the Providence Mutual Certificate representing that PSMG was covered by a Providence Mutual policy forthe pesiod September 19, 2014 trough September 19,2015. Providence Mutusl, however, neve issued a policy to SMG, let alone one that named the City as an additional insured 27, Infact, on the afternoon of September 18,2014, the day before BDD issued the Providence Mutual Certificate tothe City and just hours before Mr, Anderson told the City “my agent wants to handle this himself rather than having his assstan,” Providence Mutual emailed Korey Fratus at BDD stating tht it woud not insure PSMG because it was “unable to consider” the “exposure thats involved in property development and management of sports arenas, teams or individuals” and “folur BOP [Businessovers Policy] does not contemplate athletic exposure or property management exposures." Minutes later, Ms, Fratus acknowledged the email with a “Thank you!" 28. Despite Providence Mutual's explicit rejection of BDD's request to insure PSMG ‘on the afternoon of September 18, 2014, along with the knowledge that Ohio Mutual had cancelled its coverage two weeks before, BDD, Hainey and Deldin went head and issued the false Providence Mutual Cerificate the nest day, which PSMG, through Anderson in turn forwarded to the City Black Di 29, Asof March 2015, as PSMG's six-month deadline under the Agreement to procure a socer team to achor Dillon Stadium loomed, PSMG had not yet done so, 30. la March 2015, Anderson informed the City that PSMG was affiliating itself with an ownership group, led by Black Diamond and is principal, Duckett, which was pursuing 2 ‘commitment fora North American Soccer League (*NASL”) franchise to be based in Hartford. 31. Discussions among the City, PSMG, Anderson, Duckett and Black Disrmond led to an alternate proposal to develop Dillon Stadium. Under this proposal, the City would be responsible only for the demolition and clean-up of the sit: the ownership group would procure the soccer team and construct the facilites using private funds; andthe City would enter into @ long term ground lease forte site. This proposal would require the City to expend approximately $10 million ess than under the concept memorialized inthe Agreement 32, Inn email in July of 2015, Anderson and Duckett informed the City that "we hhave merged companies. Please have all emrespondence going forward to show Black Diamond Consulting Group, LLC and PSMG, LLC.” Although no formal documentation supporting the “merger” was produced, epon information and belief, PSMG and Black Diamond combined their operations into joint venture, after which PSMG's invoicing tothe City and receipt and use of City funds, were for the mutual use and benefit of PSMG and Black Diamond, The alternate development proposal was never consummated or implemented. ‘The Invotces. 33, After the Agreement was executed, on October 1, 2014, PSMG invoiced the City for a “retainer fee" for PSMG's services in the amount of $175,000. 34, In satisfaction ofthis invoice, the City paid PSMGG $175,000 by check dated October 14,2014 35, PSMG also invoiced the City forthe work performed by various subcontractors for work performed, or purportedly performed, in furtherance ofthe Agreement, and charged a ‘management fee on top ofthat amount. AMter receiving payment from the City, PSMG was to remit the net amount dretly tothe subcontractor. 36, On October 30, 2014, PSMG invoiced the City fr design work performed by subcontractor QuseaberryArcari Architect, LLC (“Quisenberry”), along with a 5% constuction fee to PSMG, inthe total amount of $42,073.62 37. On November 10,2014, PSMG invoiced the City for design work performed by Quisenberry, along with a $4 construction fee to PSMG, in the total amount of $31,531.74 38, In satisfaction of the October 30 and November 10,2014 invoices, the City pa PSMG $73,605.36 by check dated December 1, 2014 39. On December 17, 2014, PSMG invoiced the City fr design work performed by Quisenberry, along with a 5% constriction fee to PSMG, in the ftal amount of $63,030.02. 40, In slisfaction ofthis invoice, the City paid PSMG $63,030.62 by check dated January 20, 2015, 41, Oa February 11,2015, PSMG invoiced the City fr environmental work performed by subcontractor Fass & O'Neil, nc. (“Puss & O'Neill) ($40,337.07) and design ‘work performed by Quisenbenry ($265,761.79), along with a 5% construction fee to PSMG, in the total amount of $321,404.31 42, Insalisaetion ofthis invoice, the City paid PSMG $321,404.31 by check dated March 9, 2015. 43. On March 11,2015, PSMG invoiced the City for design work performed by Quisenberry, along with «5% constuction fe to PSMG, in the total amount of $58,541.08. 4, Instisfation ofthis invoice, the City paid PSMG $58,541.08 by check dated April 7, 2015, 45. On April 16,2015, PSMG invoiced the City for design work performed by Quisenberry, along witha 5% construction fee to PSMG, i the total amount of $151,200. 46. In satisfaction ofthis invoice, the City paid PSMGG $15,200 by check dated May 18,2015 47. On July 16,2015, PSMG invoiced the City for () environmental work performed by Fass & O'Neill ($39,187.37), i) design work performed by Quisenbery ($207,895.13), and (i) engineering work onan invoice under the name of Big Span Stvctures, LLC Big Span”) ($450,000), With PSMG's 5% construction fee, the invoice totaled $731,936 62. 48, In satisfaction of this invoice, the City paid PSMG 731,936.62 by check dated July 30, 2015, 49. On August 18,2015, PSMG invoiced the City for design work performed by Quisenberry ($13,910) and engineering work on an invoice under the name of Big Span (6250,000), With PSMG's 5% construction fee, the invoice totaled $277,106, 50. Insatisfaction ofthis invoice, the City paid PSMG $277,106 by check dated ‘August 24,2015, S51. On September 18, 2015, PSMG invoiced the City for engineering work on an invoice under the name of Big Span ($300,000). With PSMG's 5% constuction fe, the invoice totaled $315,000, The City didnot pay this invoice. 52. Intota, the City paid PSMG 1,851 823.99 under the Agreement 453, The City later leamed that Big Span did not perform the work referenced in any ofthe three invoice, including the $450,000 and $250,000 invoice that wer billed by PSMG and paid by the City. The not yet performed work referenced in the Big Span invoices dé not pertain to the Dillon Project, and PSMG did not forward to Big Span any ofthe proceeds ofthe City’s payments, or otherwise pay Big Span. ‘54. More than $33,000.00 ofthe $39,187.37 invoice for work by Fuss & O'Neil had ready been billed by PSMG and paid by the City 55. Upon information and belie, in excess of $300,000 of funds the City aid to [PSMG for work performed by Quisenberry was never paid to Quiseabery. 56. Upon information and belief, funds of PSMG, including but not limited to funds from the City’s payments to PSMG under the Agreement, were transferred to, among others, ‘Anderson, Duckett and Black Diamond (the “Transfrs") at times when PSMG lacked sufficient funds to pay its obligations. Upon information and belief, both PSMG and Black Diamond have ‘ceased operations, and continue to lack sufficient funds to pay their obligations. 57, Asaresult of PSMG's actions, in addition to losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, the City has been unable to move forward with the Dillon Projet Claims of ta FIRST COUNT: (Breach of contract) (as o PSMG) 1-57. Paragraphs | through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs 1 through $7 of this count, 48 if more flly set forth herein, 58. PSMG has breached the Agreement ina east the following ways (@) _PSMG double billed the City and the City paid forthe same work performed by subcontractor Fuss & O'Neill n PSMG invoices dated February 11,2015 and July 16,2015 ‘The amount of the double billing, including duplicate construction fees, isin excess of $30,000. (©) PSMG billed the City in excess of $1,000,000 for work by Big Span that was never performed andlor dd not pertain tothe Dillon Project. The ity paid PSMG $700,000 and ‘35,000 in elated construetion fees for work that was never performed andlor didnot pein to te Dillon Project. (©) Upon information and belief, PSMG failed to pay Quisenberry for work it performed and for which the City paid PSMG. (2) PSMG did not have insurance coverage in place listing the City as an additional insured n 59. The City has demanded that PSMG return the funds that it paid to PSMG, but PSMG has refused. 60. ‘The City has demanded that PSMG pay Quisenberry for its work, but PSMG has refused, 61. ‘The City has suffered damage as a result of PSMG's breaches of the Agreement. SECOND COUNT: (Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing) (as to PSMG) 157, Paragraphs 1 through $7 are rpleaded as paragraphs I through 57 ofthis count, asf more fully set forth herein. 58-60, Paragraphs 58 through 60 of the First Count are repleaded as parasraph 58 {hough 60 ofthis count, asi more fully set forth herein 61, The Agreement contained an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, 62. PSMG impeded the City's ability to obtin henefts thatthe City reasonably expected to receive pursuant t the Agreement by, among ater things refusing to pay the projects architect, Quisenberry, and wrongfully diverting City money that was supposed to further the Dillon Project. 63, PSMG's refusal to pay Quisenbery false invoicing tothe City and misappropriation of City funds were deliberate, wrongful and in bad faith 64, PSMG breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by its setions escribed above, and thus caused the City to suffer damage. THIRD COUNT: (Unjust enrichment (as to PSMG) 157, Paragraphs 1 through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs I through 57 ofthis count, a if more fully set forth herein 58-60, Paragraphs 58 through 60 of the Fist Count are repleaded as paragraph 58 {hrough 60 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 61-64, Paragraphs 61 through 64 of the Second Count are repleaded as paragraphs 61 {through 64 ofthis count, as if more fully set fort herein. 65, _Itoffends equity and good conscience for PSMG to elain the fands paid by the cay. 166, By reason ofthe foregoing, PSMG has engaged in conduct that has wrongfully harmed the City (67, PSMG has been unjustly enticed atthe City's expense by appropriating the ‘City’s funds for its own use 68. PSMG is liable to the City for restitution FOURTH COUNT: (Negligent misrepresentation) (as to PMG) 57. Paragraphs I through 57 ar pleaded as paragraphs 1 through 57 ofthis count, if more fully set forth herein 458, PSMG represented tothe City that it had insurance coverage as required by the ‘Agreement wien it did not, PSMG made these representations to induce the City to enter into the Agreement. B 59, PSMG knew or should have known that it did not have insurance coverage as it represented othe City 60. PSMG failed to exercise reasonable care in inaccurately communicating tothe City that it had the insurance coverage required by the Agreement. 61. The City entered into the Agreement in reasonable reliance upon PSMG representation that it had insurance coverage as required thereunder. 62. Asa result of PSMG's negligent misrepresentation, the City was induced to enter into and proceed with the Agreement, tothe City’s financial detriment FIETH COUNT: (Fraud) (sto PSMG) 1.57. Paragraps 1 through 7 ae replesded a paragraphs 1 through 57 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 58, SMG represented to the City that it had insurance coverage a required by the ‘Agreement when it didnot. PSMG made these representation to induce the City o enter into the Agreement. 59, PSMG knew that it dd not have insurance coverage ait represented tothe City. 60, PSMG acted deliberately when it inaccurately communicated to the City hat it had the insurance coverage required by the Agreement 61. ‘The City entered into the Agreement in reasonable reliance upon PSMG's representation that it had insurance coverage as required by the Agreement, 4 62. Asaesult of PSMG's fraud, the City was induced to enter into and proceed with the Agreement, tothe City’s financial detriment. SIXTH COUNT: (Conversion) (a to PSMG) 1-57, Paragraphs 1 through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs 1 through 57 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 58 PSMG invoiced the City and accepted payment for certain ofthe invoices under false pretenses 59, The City is entitled to and has demanded that PSMG return the funds, but PSMG has neglected and refused to retum them tthe City 60. By the conduet st forth above, PSMG exercised unauthorized dominion over the City’s propenty othe exclusion ofthe City’s rights, and thereby wrongfully converted the funds twits own use 61. The City has sufered damage as a result of PSMG’s wrongful conduct, SEVENTH COUNT: (Civil theft) (as to PSMG) 1.57. Paragraphs | through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs through $7 ofthis count, 4s if more fully set forth herein ‘58. By ts conduct as st forth sbove, PSMG committed larceny within the meaning ‘of Conn.Gen Stat § 532-119, by oe or more ofthe following: (@) Obtaining propety by false pretenses (Conn. Gen Stat § 532-119(2), by obaining payments from the City bya false token, pretense or device ~ namely, invoices for work for which PSMG was not entitled to receive payment from the City, andor for work by subcontractors whom PSMG cl not intend to pay with the intent to defraud the City (&) Obiaining propery by fase promise (Conn Gen Stat. §53s-119(3), by obtaining payments fom the City, pursuant oa scheme to defaud, by means ofthe false promise, express oF implied to use funds received from the City to pay subeontrecter bills subsumed within PSMG'S invoices. (©) Deftauding a public community (Conn.Gen.Stat.§534-119(6)), b reimbursement from a local agency which PSMG knew to be false 59, By the conduct set forth above, PSMG stole property ofthe City, within the ‘meaning of Conn Gen Stat. § 52-564 EIGHTH COUNT: (Fraudulent transfer) (as to PSMG) 1.57. Paragraphs 1 through $7 ae repleaded a paragraphs I through $7 ofthis coun, 4 if more fly set forth herein, 458, PSMG made the Transfers with actual intent to hinder, dela or defraud the City, rendering such transfers fraudolent under Conn.Gen Stat. §$2-552e(0X). 59, PSMG made the Transfers without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in ‘exchange for the Transfers, and was engaged or was about to engage in transactions for which its remaining assels were unceasonably small in relation tothe transactions, rendering the Transfers fraudulent under Conn, Gen Stat. §52-552e(@)(2)(A). 60. PSMG made the Transfers without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in ‘exchange for the Transfers and intended to incut, or believed or reasonably should have believed that it would incur, debts beyond its ability to pay a they became due, rendering the Transfers fraudulent under Conn. Gen Stat §$2-552e(3)(2)B). 61. PSMG made the Transfers without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange forthe Transfers and was insolvent at the time of or as a result of the Transfers, tendering the Transfers fraudulent under Conn Gen Stat. §52-552H). 62. Tothe extent chat Anderson, Black Diamond andlor Duckett claims the Transfers were in payment of debis owing from PSMG to them, the Transfers were in violation of ‘Conn.Gen Stat. § 55-552f(), in that they were to insiders of PSMG, the Transfers were made for antecedent debts, PSMG was insolvent at the time of the Transfers and the transferees had reasonable cause to believe that PSMG was insolvent 63, PSMGis liable tothe City pursuant to Conn, Gen Stat. § 52-552h and/or § 52-5521 NINTH COUNT: (Uafai ade practice) (as to PSMG) 1-57, Paragraphs 1 trough 57 are repeaded as paragraphs 1 through 57 ofthis count a if more fully set forth herein 58-60, Paragraphs 58 trough 60 of the Fist Count ar repleaded as paragraphs 58 ‘through 60 ofthis count as if more fully se forth herein, 61-64, Paragraphs 61 through 64 ofthe Second Count are repleaded as paragraphs 6 through 6 ofthis count, a if more fly se forth herein 165.67. Paragraphs 65 theough 67 ofthe Third Count are repleaded as paragraphs 65 through 67 of this count, as if more fully set forth herein (68-72, Paragraphs 58 through 62 of he Fifth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 68 through 72 of this count, asi more fully set forth herein 73-16, Paragraphs 58 through 61 ofthe Sixth Count ar repleaded as paragraphs 73 through 76 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 7-78, Paragraphs 58 and 59 ofthe Seventh Count are repleaded as paragraphs 77 and 78 ofthis count, as if more fly set forth herein, 79.83, Paragraphs 58 through 62 ofthe Eighth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 79 ‘hough 83 of this count, a8 if more fully set fort herein £4, Atal times relevant, PSMG was person within the meaning of Conn Gea Stat {42-110a, and engaged in trade or commerce within this State 85, PSMG's misconduct as set forth above constitutes immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupalous conduct that PSMG committed i ts rade or commerce. 86. PSMG's misconduct asset forth above has caused actual harm to the City 87, PSMG's misconduct consttues an unfair tade practice, in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn.Gen Stat, § 42-1108 et seq, ‘TENTH COUNT: (Uajust enrichment (as to Anderson) 1-57, Paragraphs 1 through 57 ae repleaded as paragraphs | through 57 ofthis count, a if more fully set forth herein 58-60, Paragraphs 58 through 60 ofthe First Count are repleaded as paragraphs 58 through 60 of this count, as if more fll set forth herein. 61-64, Paragraphs 61 through 64 of the Second Count are repleaded as paragraphs 6 through 64 ofthis count, as if more fll set for herein. 65-68, Paragraphs 65 dough 68 of the Third Count are repleaded a paragraphs 65 {through 68 ofthis count, as if more fll set fort herein. 69, Anderson personally implemented andr participated in implementation ofthe transactions set forth above, and did so with wrongful intent 70. As an ative tortfeasor with wrongful intent, Anderson cannot avail himself ofthe limited lablty company veil, and shares personal lability wth PSMG for PSMG’s bad sets, 71. Furthermore, Anderso liable to the City for restitution because he caused certain ofthe funds stolen by PSMG to be disbursed to himself and/or for his personal benefit at the City’s expense, a a result of which he was unjustly enriched, ELEVENTH COUNT: (Frau) (as to Anderson) 1-57, Paragraphs 1 through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs I through $7 ofthis count, a if more fully set forth herein, ‘58-62. Paragraphs 58 through 62 of the th Count are repleaded as paragraphs $8 through 62 of this count, a8 if more fully set forth herein (63. Anderson personally made the false representations described above and did so ‘with wrongfal intent 64, As an ative tortfeasor with wrongful intent, Anderson cannot avail himself ofthe limited liability company vel, and shares personal liability with PSMG for PSMG's fraud. ‘TWELFTH COUNT: (Conversion) (a to Anderson) 1-57, Paragraphs 1 through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs 1 through 57 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 58-61, Paragraphs 58 through 61 of the Sixth Count ae repleaded as paragraphs 58 through 61 ofthis count, as if more fll set fort herein, 62, Anderson personally implemented andr participated in implementation ofthe transactions set forth above, and did so with wrongfl intent 63, Asan active tortfeasor with wrongful intent, Anderson cannot avail himself ofthe limited liability company veil, and shares personal liability with PSMG for PSMG’s bad ats. ‘THIRTEENTH COUNT: (Civil theft (as to Anderson) 1-57. Paragraphs 1 through $7 are repleaded as paragraphs 1 through 57 of tis count, as if more fully set forth herein, 58-59, Paragraphs 58 and 59 ofthe Seventh Count are repleaded as paragraphs 58 and 59 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein, 60. Anderson personally implemeated and/or participated in implementation ofthe transactions set forth above, and di so with wrongful intent, 61. Asan active tortfeasor with wrongful intent, Anderson cannot aval himself ofthe limited lability company vel, and shares personal lability ith PSMG for PSMG's bad sets 62. Furthermore, Anderson caused certain of the funds stolen by PSMG to be disbursed to himself andor for his personal benefit 63. Anderson commited larceny through the aditional acts of receiving stolen property (Conn.Gen Stat. § 538-119(8), by receiving funds that PSMGG stole from the City while ‘knowing thatthe funds had probably been stolen or believing the funds had probably been stolen, (64, By the conduct set forth above, Anderson sole the property of the City, within the meaning of Conn.Gen Stat § 52-564, FOURTEENTH COUNT: (Fraudulent transfer) (as to Anderson) 1-57, Paragraphs 1 through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs 1 through 57 of this count, ‘as if more fully se forth herein, ‘58-62, Paragraphs 58 through 62 of the Fighth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 58 through 62 of this count, a if more fully set forth herein, 63. Anderson, as fraudulent transferee, is liable to the City pursuant 10 Conn.Gen Stat § 52-552h andlor § 52-552. FIFTEENTH COUNT: (Unfsir rade practice (a to Anderson) 1-57. Paragraphs 1 through 57 ae repladed as paragraphs 1 through 57 ofthis coun, a if more fully set forth herein 58-60, Paragraphs 58 through 60 ofthe First Count are repleaded as paragraps 58 through 60 ofthis count, a if more flly set forth herein (61-64, Paragraphs 61 through 64 ofthe Second Count are epleaded as paragraphs 61 through 64 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 65.67, Paragraphs 65 through 67 ofthe Third Count are repleaded as paragraphs 65 {trough 67 of this count, as if more fully set forth herein 68-72, Paragraphs 58 through 62 of the Fifth Count are vepleaded as paragraphs 68 through 72 of this count, as if more fully set forth herein 73-76, Paragraphs 58 through 61 ofthe Sixth Count are repleade as paragraphs 73 {trough 76 of his count, as if more fll set fort herein, 77-78, Paragraphs 58 and 59 ofthe Seventh Count are repleaded as paragraphs 7 and 78 ofthis count, as if more fly set forth herein. 179.83, Paragraphs 58 through 62 of the Eighth Count ate repleaded as paragraphs 79 through 83 ofthis count, a if more flly se forth herein 84-87, Paragraphs 84 through 87 of the Ninth Count are eepleaded as paragraphs 84 {brough 87 ofthis count, as if more fly set forth herein 88, Anderson personally implemented andfr participated in implementation of he transactions set forth above, and did so with wrongful intent 2 89. Asan active torfeasor with wrongful intent, Anderson cannot avail himself ofthe limited lability company vel, and shares personal liability with PSMG for PSMGs bad acts. 90, Anderson's misconduct constitutes an unfair trade practice, in violation ofthe Connecticut Unfair Trae Practices Act, Conn.Gen Stal. § 42-110a et sea SIXTEENTH COUNT: (Unjust enrichment (as to Black Diamond) 1-57. Paragraphs 1 through 57 ae repleaded as paragraphs 1 through 57 ofthis count, a if more fully set forth herein 58-60, Paragraphs SB through 60 of the Ftst Count are repleaded as paragraphs 58 through 60 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein. 61.64, Paragraphs 61 through 64 of the Second Count are repleaded as paragraphs 61 through 64 ofthis count, s if more fly st forth herein. 165-67, Paragraphs 65 through 67 ofthe Third Count are eepleaded as paragraphs 65 through 67 ofthis count, a if more fly set forth herein 68, Certain of the funds that PSMG wrongfully obtained from the City were in turn transferred to Black Diamond, with Black Diamond's actual knowledge ofthe wrongful circumstances under which PSMG ad obtained them. Black Diamond in turn exercised dominion and control over certain of those funds by spending them and/or transferring them to Dackett andor third partis, 69. offends equity and good conscience for Black Diamond to retain the benefit hat it derived from the funds at issue, 23 70. By reason of the foregoing, Black Diamond has engaged in conduct that has ‘weongfully harmed the City 71. Black Diamond has bees unjustly enriched atthe City’s expense by appropriating the City’s funds fr its own use. 7. Black Diamond is lable to the City or restitution, SEVENTEENTH COUNT: (Conversion) (ast Black Diamond) 1-57, Paragraphs 1 throwgh 57 are rpleaded as paragraphs 1 trough 57 ofthis count, asi more fully set forth herein 58-61, Paragraphs 58 through 61 of the Sixth Count ae repleaded as paragraphs SB through 61 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 62, Paragraph 68 of the Sixteenth Couat is repleaded as paragraph 62 of this count, as it more fully set forth herein 63, By the conduct set forth above, Black Diamond exercised unauthorized dominion over the City's property othe exclusion ofthe City’s rights, and thereby wrongfully converted the funds tits own use (64, "The City has suffered damage asa result of Black Diamond's wrongful conduct. EIGHTEENTH COUNT: (Conspiracy to convert) (as to Black Diamond) 157. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs 1 through $7 of this count, asf more fully st forth herein 4 58-61. Paragraphs 58 through 61 of the Sith Count ae repleaded as paragraphs $8 through 61 of this count, as if more fully set forth herein 62. As part of their combined operation, PSMG and Black Diamond jointly and deliberately schemed to wnlawfully obtain funds from the City 63. PSMG issued its false invoices to the City as st forth above pursuant 1 its Scheme with Black Diamond and in furtherance of thet joint object to ileglly obtain funds from the City 64, As result of Black Diamond's conspiracy with PSMG to convert City funds, Black Diamond is liable to the City for the City's resulting damage. NINETEENTH COUNT: (Civil theft) (as to Black Diamond) 1-57. Paragraphs I through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs 1 through 57 of this eount, as if more flly st forth herein ‘58-59, Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Seventh Count are repleaded as paragraphs 58 and 59 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein, 60, Black Diamond and/or PSMG caused certain of the funds stolen by PSMG to be «disbursed to Black Diamond and/or forthe benefit of Black Diamond and/or Black Diamond’ principals 61. Black Diamond committed larceny, pursuant to Conn Gen Stat. § $3a-119(8), by receiving funds that PSMG stole from the City while knowing that the funds had probably been stolen or believing the funds had probably been stolen, 25 62. By the conduct set forth above, Black Diamond stole the property of the City, ‘within the meaning of Conn, Gen Stat. § 52-564. DWENTIETH COUNT: (Conspiracy to commit the) (as to Black Diamond) 1-57. Paragraphs 1 through 57 are epleaded as paragraphs I through $7 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein, ‘58-59, Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Seventh Count are repleaded as paragraphs $8 and $9 ofthis count, a if more fully set forth herein. 62, Aspartof their combined operation, PSMG and Black Diamond jointly and deliberately schemed to unlawfully obtain funds from the City. 63, PSMG issued its false invoices to the City asset forth above pursuant co its scheme with Black Diamond and in furtherance of ther joint object to illegally obtain funds fiom the City 64. Asa result of Black Diamond’s conspiracy with PSMG to steal City funds, Black Diamond is liable to the City for civil theft, pursuant to Conn Gen Stat. § 52-564, ‘TWENTY-FIRST COUNT: (Fraudulent transfer) (as o Black Diamond) 1.57. Paragraphs 1 through 57 ae epleaded as paragraphs I through 57 ofthis count, as if more fully set forts herein 58-62, Paragraphs 58 through 62 ofthe Eighth Count are repleaded as paragraphs $8 ‘through 62 ofthis count, as if more fully et forth herein. 26 63. Black Diamond, as fraudulent transferee, is liable to the City pursuant to ‘Conn. Gen Stat. § $2-552h and/or § 52-5521, ‘TWENTY.SECOND COUNT: (Unfair ade practice) (as to Black Diamond) 1-57, Paragraphs 1 through 57 ae epleaded as paragraphs 1 trough 57 of this count, asf more fully et forth herein 58-60, Paragraphs 58 through 60 ofthe First Coun are repleade as paragraphs 58 through 60 of this count, a8 more fully set forth herein 61-64, Paragraphs 61 through 64 of the Second Count are repleaded as paragraphs 61 {rough 64 ofthis count, a8 i more fully set forth herein 65-61, Paragraphs 65 through 67 of the Third Count are repleaded as paragraphs 65 {trough 67 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 68-71, Paragraphs 58 through 61 ofthe Sixth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 68 through 71 ofthis count, as if more fly se forth herein 12-73, Paragraphs 58 and 59 ofthe Seventh Count are pleaded as paragraphs 72 and 73, ofthis count, sf more flly set forth herein ‘4.78, Paragraphs 58 though 62 ofthe Eighth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 74 through 78 ofthis count asi more fll set forth herein. 79.82, Paragraphs 68 though 71 of the Seventeznth Count are epleaded as paragraphs 79 through 82 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein, 7 83-84, Paragraphs 63 and 64 ofthe Eighteenth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 83 and £4 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein. 85.87, Paragraphs 60 through 62 ofthe Twentieth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 85 through 87 ofthis count, asi more Fully et fort herein, 88, Paragraph 63 ofthe Twenty-First Counts repleaded as paragraph 88 of this count, a if more fully set fort herein 89, Atall times relevant, Black Diamond was a person within the meaning of Conn, Gen Stat. §42-110, and engaged in trade or commerce within this tate 90, Black Diamond's misconduct asset forth above constitutes immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous conduct that Black Diamond commited in ts trade or commerce 91, Black Diamond's misconduct as set forth above has caused atual harm tothe City. 92, Black Diamond’s misconduct constitutes an unfair trade practice, in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn,Gen Stat. § 42-110a et seq TDWENTY-THIRD COUNT: (Conspirey to commit unfair trade practice) aso Black Diamond) 1.57. Paragraphs 1 though 57 ae repleaded ss paragraphs | through 57 of his count, a if more folly set forth bere. 58-60. Paragraphs 58 through 60 of the First Coun sre pleaded as paragraphs $8 {through 60 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 28 61-64, Paragraphs 61 through 64 ofthe Second Count ae repleaded as paragraphs 61 through 64 ofthis count, 3s i more fll set forts herein. 65.67. Paragraphs 65 through 67 ofthe Pied Count are epleade as paragraphs 65 through 67 ofthis count, as if more fully set fort herein 68.71, Paragraphs $8 through 61 ofthe Sixth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 68 through 71 ofthis count, as if more fly se forth herein 72-73, Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Seventh Count ate repleade as paragraphs 72 and 73 ofthis count, a if more fully set forth herein 74.78, Paragraphs 58 through 62 ofthe Eighth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 74 through 78 ofthis count, a if more flly set forth hercin. 79.82, Paragraphs 84 through 87 ofthe Ninth Count are repleaded as paragraphs 79 through 82 ofthis count, a if more flly set forth herein. 83, As partof their combined operation, PSMG and Black Diamond jointly and deliberately schemed o unlawfully obtain funds from the City and cause certain ofthe funds to be transferred to and/or forthe benefit of Black Diamond, Anderson and/or Ducket 84, PSMG performed the bad ats described above pursuant to is scheme with Black Diamond and in furtherance of thei join object oilegally obtain funds fom the City 85. As aresultof Black Diamond's conspiracy with PSMG to commit unfair trade practices, Black Diamond is liable to the City forthe City's resulting damage. 2» ‘WEN’ ;OURTH COUNT: (Unjust enrichment) (a to Duckett) 1-57, Paragraphs 1 through 57 are repleaded as paragraphs 1 though 57 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 158.60, Paragraphs 58 through 60 ofthe Ftst Count are repleaded as paragraphs 58 {through 60 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein. 61-64, Paragraphs 61 through 64 ofthe Second Count are repleade as paragraphs 61 through 64 ofthis count, as if more fully set forth herein 65.67, Paragraphs 65 through 67 ofthe Third Count are repleaded as paragraphs 65 {trough 67 ofthis count, if more fly set forth herein 68. Certain ofthe funds that PSMG wrongflly obtained from the City were in turn transferred to Ducket, with Ducket's actual knowledge ofthe wrongful citcumstances under ‘which PSMG had obtained them, Ducket in tum exercised dominion and contol over the funds ‘wrongfully transferred to him, by spending them and/or moving them to other accounts 69, offends equity and good conscience for Duckett o seta the benefit that he

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi