Need Legal Advise?

Need Legal Advise?
Attorney Jason L. McCoy

Sunday, August 18, 2019

McCoy Get's $170,000 Verdict In Vernon Rockville Connecticut Court for Client, After $17k Offer by Insurance Carrier

Rockville Jury Sides With Driver, Rejects Safeco's Arguments About Prior Injuries

McCoy Get's $170,000 Verdict In Vernon Rockville Connecticut Court for Client, After $17k Offer by Insurance Carrier

Attorney Jason L McCoy Gets Verdict in Rockville for Personal Injury, Law Offices of Jason L. McCoy, LLC Connecticut Persoanl Injury Attorney

A six-person Rockville Superior Court jury has awarded $170,172 to a Manchester woman who re-aggravated her back after a driver T-boned her Lexus in September 2015.  The jury actually added figures to the defense attorney's verdict form, it was just like Attorney Jason L. McCoy requested, giving McCoy's client future medicals and past medicals that were not listed in the defense interrogatory.  The jury wrote in extra lines on the defense interrogatory.   Attorney's usually claim Rockville juries are  award low verdicts on personal injury cases but McCoy said that in his "past experience and in this case that is not true".   

The jury heard testimony from three people—all plaintiff witnesses—on how the crash had an adverse effect on 61-year-old Cynthia Sementilli, who still suffers from severe back pain nearly four years after the collision, according to her Vernon-based attorney, Jason McCoy.

While the defense didn’t call any witnesses during the one-and-a-half-day trial, McCoy said they tried to attribute Sementilli’s pain to a previous lumbar fusion and cervical fusion to her neck.
McCoy, the owner of Law Offices of Jason L. McCoy, said he believes testimony from his client and her primary care doctor, Angelee Carta, helped sway the jury and resolve Sementilli’s amended lawsuit against driver Alyssa Sorgio and Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois.

“My client was honest, straightforward and believable about the problems she had before and after the accident,” McCoy said Tuesday about Sementilli’s four hours of testimony. “I believe the jury felt really connected with my client.”

McCoy believes Carta’s testimony helped seal the deal, and after about seven hours of deliberations, the jury rendered its verdict in Sementilli’s favor.

“The doctor when through my client’s medical records and was able to show this pain was from this accident,” McCoy said. “The doctor told how my client had intractable pain after the accident, which means it was caused by the accident.”

Representing Safeco was James Donohue with Meehan, Roberts, Turret & Rosenbaum in Glastonbury. Donohue did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday, but in court pleadings, Safeco denied any negligence by its client, Sorgio. It also claimed Sementilli’s injuries were preexistent. The reason was that the Plaintiff was having injections to he back two weeks before the accident and was scheduled to have injections after the accident. 

Safeco did, however, agree not to appeal the verdict.

She argued she’d suffered neck, back and knee injuries in the crash. Her attorney said the neck and knee pains have since resolved, but others remain, making Sementilli a candidate for back surgery.

“The doctors have told my client that the pain in her back will be permanent,” McCoy said. “She still has pain and cramping and spasms. The more activity she does, the worse her back gets.”

Sementilli, a nurse, was allegedly injured after a vehicle Sorgio was driving allegedly struck her car in Manchester in 2015. Responding officers cited Sorgio for failure to grant the right of way.
McCoy, who said he believes the jury verdict was fair, said the defense had offered $17,000 to settle the case before trial, while the plaintiff had demanded $40,000.

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Injuries in Parking Areas

Injuries in Parking Areas

For almost every shopping center, school, or condo working, there is a parking area that enables individual’s access to these premises via automobile. Parking areas are helpful and convenient spots to leave a vehicle while individuals carry on with their everyday business, yet they can likewise be conceivably perilous.  

Consistently, numerous individuals are harmed from mishaps or assaults that happen in parking areas.  As an open access public place, premises liability laws must be addressed by proprietors of parking lots and garages. Individuals assume a specific level of security in a parking area. In the event that carelessness with respect to the parking lot or garage proprietor, the proprietor might be considered responsible for the harms that originate from that damage. Law Offices of Jason L. McCoy, LLC is glad to examine the obligation of the landowner of the parking lots and garages, and how our Vernon, New Haven, Waterbury and Hartford clients can guarantee they are legitimately compensated for harms occurring at fault of the proprietors’ negligence in parking lots and/or parking garage.

Obligation of Care

Premises liability laws have been based on the understanding that property owners must comply to a specific legitimate obligation of care. Those that are at the owner’s premises as a customer or guest of a tenant are known under CT law as invitees, and are owed the highest duty under CT law. This duty requires the landowner to inspect their property for latent defects, provide warnings of defects, and maintain their property to make it reasonably safe. Failure to this exposes the landowner to liability to the invitee under the law.  You are presumed to use all due care under Connecticut Law as an invitee.  

These premises liability laws apply to all territories of the property, including the parking area. The landowner owed a non-delegable duty to maintain their property and cannot pass off this responsibility to those it hires to do work there.

Parking Area Hazards

Mishaps are normal in parking garages. There are numerous components that can add to these.  Probably the most widely recognized parking area perils include:

Poor Lighting: A dim/dark parking area can be a hazardous place. Poor lighting frequently adds to mis-steps and falls. Poor lighting is likewise perfect for criminal action, as it makes it easier to slip around in the shadows. Subsequently, poor lighting expands the danger of burglary and physical assault, exposing the landowner to a separate claim for negligently failing to provide adequate security for its invitees.

Damaged Asphalt: Parking areas are utilized by numerous autos on any given day, so it isn’t a surprise that parking garage asphalt regularly ends up needing repair. Larger breaks, pot-holes, and unsafe wheel stops would all be able to be harmful or cause a fall or worse. A proper inspection would notice these slow developing defects and require the landowner to have them repaired immediately, or face liability.

Lacking or Poor Signage: Inadequate or poor signage is a specific worry for parking areas and structures. At the point when numerous autos are parked in a little space, inappropriate signage can increase the danger of an auto collision or, even worse, a passerby. While careless drivers can be considered in charge of these mishaps, premises liability laws likewise regularly apply.

Lacking Security:  One area that Attorney Jason L. McCoy handles with significate experience, and most law firms do not handle, which is referred to as inadequate security in parking lots or for that matter almost any premises which the owner has a financial motive to operate including municipal run garages and lots.  Parking lot and garage proprietors are not committed to provide security or adequate staff. Be that as it may, if a parking area is particularly large, if wrong-doing is an issue in that part of town, and if the property proprietors operate for profit from the location, it is sensible to believe that security will be on-site. Lacking security can increase the danger of criminal action, including ambush and/or assault, thereby exposing the landowner to liability.  

In Connecticut, in a premise liability case based on negligence where the injury was caused by a criminal or intentional act of a third party the issue is foreseeability. Question “is the intervention of the criminal within the foreseeable scope of the risk created by the defendant’s negligent conduct?” Stewart v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 662 A.2d 753, 762 (1995); Hightower v. Walgreen Eastern Co., Inc., 2002 WL 1332497 (Conn.Super.).  If the answer is in the affirmative, then the defendant parking lot and garage proprietor has a duty to protect the YOU. Unless there is a circumstance where the owner or employee of the owner assumed control of the situation then all responsibility for consequences of his act is shifted to parking lot and garage proprietor. Burns v. Gleason Plant Security, Inc., 10 Conn. App. 480, 523 (1987).  In such a case, there is a duty based on the defendant’s act of assuming control.
If it is the owner or its employee who shot your client while trying to control the premises, then the duty and the breach of the duty are based on the assumed control of the situation. If your client was shot by a third person while patronizing a business, then the duty is based on the failure to protect an invitee from foreseeable acts of third parties that resulted in the injuries.
If you find that the defendant advertised its business as a safe place for people, or a place for families, or any inferential term that would let a reasonable person believe that he or she could go there with no worries or concern for safety, then negligent misrepresentation will work as a theory in your case, as well as a claim for unfair trade practices.  See Connecticut Regulation Sec. 42-110b-18 Misleading advertising (b) Misrepresent the age, model, grade, style or standard of merchandise or services; (e) Misrepresent the nature, characteristics, standard ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities or qualities of merchandise or services.
If there have been several similar incidents at the site, your claim is also based upon negligent failure to warn of a latent danger, or negligent repair and/or nuisance.
In Connecticut, you may develop a theory of liability that the operation of the business was an unfair trade practice that resulted in the injury to the victim as a consumer and therefor violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). The basic elements revolve around the “for profit motive” of the defendant and the consumer’s expectation.  The key questions are:
             Is the practice within at least the penumbra of some common law, statutory law or other concept of unfairness;
             Whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous; and
             Whether it causes substantial injury to consumers. Abbhi v. Ami, 1997 WL 325850 (Conn.     Super.); Connecticut General Statute Section 42- 110b(a)(2003); Connecticut General Statute Section 42-110g(a) ; Connecticut General Statute Section 42-110g(d)
A violation of CUTPA can be demonstrated by actual deceptive practices or by conduct that violates public policy. Abbhi v. Ami, 1997 WL 325850 (Conn. Super.), at page 5; Suarez v. Sordo, 43 Conn. App. 756, 772, 685 A.2d 1144, 1153 (1996) Moreover intent to deceive need not be established. Abbhi v. Ami, 1997 WL 325850 (Conn. Super.), at page 5; Suarez v. Sordo, 43 Conn. App. 756, 772, 685 A.2d 1144, 1153 (1996); See also, Mola v. Home Depot USA, 2001 WL 1420669 (Conn. Super.); Abrams v. Riding High Dude Ranch, 198 Conn. Super. LEXIS 339 (Conn. Super. CT. Feb. 5, 1998); Levesque v. Willaimsburg Assocs., 1995 Conn. Super. LEXIS 495 (Conn. Super. CT. 1995); Robert M. Langer, John T. Morgan, David L. Belt FNC, 12 Conn. Prac., Unfair Trade Practice § 6.8, Chapter 6. Private Enforcement. The harm suffered by the consumer must result from the alleged violation. Suarez v. Sordo, 43 Conn. App. 756, 685 A.2d 1144 (1996); Lunn v. Hussey, 2003 WL 23191968 (Conn.Super.). Basically, the defendant created or maintained a hazard at the business, which was negligent or hazardous, it is defendant’s practice to do this because the defendant saved money by doing it, and the consumer went to the defendant’s place of business to purchase something and was injured by the business practice. Mola v. Home Depot USA, 2001 WL 1420669 (Conn. Super.) this language was taken from the pleading in this case. 
CUTPA and Public Municipal Parking: It is the rule in Connecticut that if the act engaged in is operated for the corporate benefit or pecuniary profit of the municipality, governmental immunity is not applicable. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-557n(B).  Municipal corporations like private corporations are treated as natural persons for virtually all purposes of constitutional and statutory analysis. In particular, they were routinely sued in both federal and state courts. See Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 639-640. The fact that a small fee is charged does not necessarily deprive the municipality of governmental immunity. A fee charged as a means to derive a profit from the activity removes the benefit of an immunity or in this case the exception under 42-110c as a defense. Eva Doran v. Waterbury Parking Authority et al, 35 Conn. Supp. 280 (1979); Bruder v. New Haven Memorial Veterans Coliseum Authority, 1998 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1813. See Connecticut Parking Sevices 2013 WL 1800344. In the case of Eva Doran v. Waterbury Parking Authority et al, 35 Conn. Supp. 280, 282-283; 1979 Conn. Super. LEXIS 165; 408 A.2d 277 the Superior Court held that:
“the fact that a fee is charged in the present case indicates a commercial enterprise entered into for the corporate benefit of the municipality and goes beyond the mere incident of the public service rendered. The operation of a ramp garage by a municipality may admittedly be in the public interest in that it lessens congestion in the streets and promotes the flow of traffic. It appears to this court, however, that the activity has traditionally been an undertaking provided in a private capacity for commercial advantage. This court cannot, in good conscience, hold that the operation of a ramp garage constitutes a governmental function.” See the Connecticut Superior Court summary judgment decision in DANIEL M. LENNON v. NEW HAVEN PARKINGAUTHORITY NNH-CV-11-6022551-S. (8/29/2016)
There is a three part test for satisfying the substantial injury criterion used to determine whether a practice violates the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA): (1) the injury must be substantial, (2) it must not be outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition that the practice produces, and (3) it must be an injury that consumers themselves could not reasonably have avoided. C.G.S.A. § 42-110b(a). Murray v. Taylor, 65 Conn. App. 300 (2001). Under CUTPA, a plaintiff may recover damages if he suffers an "ascertainable loss" of money or property. Conaway v. Prestia, 191 Conn. 484 (1983). Obviously, the plaintiff in the instant case has suffered an ascertainable loss as both economic and non-economic damages, all of which are clearly "ascertainable" by a jury. "An ascertainable loss is a 'deprivation, detriment (or) injury' that is 'capable of being discovered, observed, or established.'" Criscuolo v. Shaheen, 46 Conn. Sup. 53, 62 (1999, Blue, J.).

 Proof of Negligent Premises Liability

Premises Liability cases can be difficult to prove. It is up to the person injured to demonstrate that carelessness with respect to the property proprietor caused or added to wounds and harms. This is why it is important to seek out an experienced attorney early on while the evidence is still available to prove the defect. We are knowledgeable and experienced in proving premises liability cases and will gather the proof that is important to demonstrate the landowner’s breach of their obligations.
It is very important that you call our office at 860-872-7741 Law Offices of Jason L. McCoy, LLC if you have a possible claim for injury that occurred in parking facility.  

Monday, April 24, 2017

Advanced Trial Tactics - Presented by Jason L. McCoy in Hartford — April 25, 2017 KEY Code CS Hartford: 75460

Jason L. McCoy, Vernon Connecticut  Advanced Trial Tactics - Hartford, Connecticut — April 25, 2017
Advanced Trial Tactics - Hartford, Connecticut — April 25, 2017 Attorney Jason L. McCoy

9:00 - 10:15, Written by Jason L. McCoy.Presented by Jason L. McCoy in Hartford

A. Preparing for Jury Selection -
Researching Your “Target Audience”
(Venue, Juror Pool Demographics,
Creating Your “Ideal Juror,”
Drafting Surveys/Questionnaires, etc.)

B. Preparing the Pre-Trial Order

C. Introducing Your Case During Jury Selection

D. Bringing to the Surface and
Overcoming Juror and Judicial Biases

E. Reading the Vital Non-Verbal Signals
Jurors are Sending

F. Peremptory and For-Cause Challenge Tactics

10:30 - 11:30, Written by Jason L. McCoy.Presented by Jason L. McCoy in Hartford

A. Maximizing the Impact of Opening
Statements (Introducing Case Theme
and Key Case Parties; Laying out the Sequence
of Events; Introducing Supporting and
Damaging Evidence; Preparing Judge and
Jury to Focus on Specific Elements of
Trial Presentation; Opening Techniques
That Simply Don’t Work, Cutting Out
Unnecessary Clutter)

B. Preparation Tips for Direct Examination
(Establishing the Main Theme; Organizing
the Order of Testimony; Preparing Witnesses;
Formulating Effective Questions)

C. Areas of Direct Examination
(Specific Approaches to Impeachment,
Fact Testimony, Expert Testimony, Causation,
Liability, Damages, Foundation, etc.)

D. Persuasive Witness Testimony - How to:
1. Develop the Story
and Make it Interesting
2. Integrate a Theme
3. Adjust to the Specific Audience
4. Limit the Scope
5. Handle and Introduce Exhibits
6. Authenticate Documents
7. Humanize Your Witness
8. Anticipate and Neutralize

E. Is Interim Commentary Allowed?
How to Use it Well

11:30 - 12:45, Written by Jason L. McCoy.Presented by Jason L. McCoy in Hartford

A. What to Include

B. Length and Style Tactics

C. Use of Pace and Voice Inflection
to Emphasize Key Elements

D. Addressing the Weak Points of the Case

E. The Verdict Sheet/Jury Instructions -
Clearly Asking for What You Want

Holiday Inn Hartford Downtown Area
100 East River Drive • East Hartford CT 06108
Phone: 860-528-9703

JASON L. McCOY is the principal of The McCoy Law Firm, with offices in
Vernon, Hartford, Waterbury, and New Haven. Mr. McCoy is a civil trial lawyer
who represents plaintiffs in product liability actions, defective premises actions,
inadequate security cases, drug litigation, tractor trailer wrecks, wrongful death
actions, and motor vehicle wrecks and commercial litigations. He and his firm
also practice in the areas of real estate law, bankruptcy law and criminal
defense. Mr. McCoy is a presidential member of the American Association
for Justice (formerly ATLA); a member of the Board of Governors for the
Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association (Education Committee); a member
of the Tolland, Connecticut and American bar associations; and the
Million Dollar Verdict Forum. Mr. McCoy has presented nationally to members
of the American Association for Justice in its Litigation at Sunrise program
on inadequate security case involving gun shot victims. He has also presented
to the Connecticut Trial Lawyer Association on several occasions on such
topics as focus groups, story telling and closing arguments, legal emergencies,
and handling cases in federal court.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Controversy over Election 2016 and False Logic

Rhetoric and Allegation related to Russian hacking claimed correlation to an impact on the US Presidential election seems to miss interpret intelligence statements by the CIA.  The premise of the rhetoric leads to false logical correlation.  The statements touted by the democrats are attributed to the CIA are that the illegal hacking impacted the election.  The statement is that there was hacking.  If I understand the world today, the country hack each other.  It’s the release of the information to the public, not the tampering with voting.  If there was tampering with voting that is one thing.  But the October surprise here was Weiner and his wife laptop with all of Hillary’s emails backed up on it which was really the reminder to the Nation that Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information.  It was highlighted for voters.  All non-classified information would be subject to FOI but Clinton destroyed it.  Remember that Obama and Clinton were allowing the government to monitor US citizens telephone and electronic communications.  But remember who put that information out in the public – it was the New York City Police Department and other Weiner investigators. 

Obviously the hacking of email accounts and servers is illegal. Ask the Sarah Palin high school hacker.  However the information obtained could have been obtained by bring a bill of discovery especially if the was fraud involved which clearly there was at the DNC when the DNC officials were attempting to rig the democratic convention.  The DNC is a private entity and required to abide by the DNC rules. Giving questions to one candidate in a debate over another candidate is certainly a form of rigging or fraud on the public.  Further Clinton’s public emails are public information and the misappropriation or misuse of public information could be subject to several causes of action by members of the public. It can be bothersome and time consuming but you have to turn over.   

While the subpoena of webmail accounts is not illegal according to the Justice department and its treatment of information stored on systems not under the control of the users and/or based upon the policy of the third party provider (i.e. google or yahoo) the information can be easily and lawfully obtained.

As this relates to Hillary Clinton, her handling of classified information, only illuminated or highlighted the reason why the our national intelligence back up to the cloud by Hillary Clinton which included national security classified information on a third party system in the Norwalk CT data storage company Datto Inc.   Take a look at Datto Inc., privacy policy from 2014 essentially indicates that it will turn over information based upon a lawfully served subpoena. 

According to the New York Time September 28, 2013 article “disclosures add to the growing body of knowledge in recent months about the N.S.A.’s access to and use of private information concerning Americans, prompting lawmakers in Washington to call for reining in the agency and President Obama to order an examination of its surveillance policies. Almost everything about the agency’s operations is hidden, and the decision to revise the limits concerning Americans was made in secret, without review by the nation’s intelligence court or any public debate.”  The NY Times stated that “the legal underpinning of the policy change, she said, was a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that Americans could have no expectation of privacy about what numbers they had called. Based on that ruling, the Justice Department and the Pentagon decided that it was permissible to create contact chains using Americans’ “metadata,” which includes the timing, location and other details of calls and e-mails, but not their content. The agency is not required to seek warrants for the analyses from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

To circle back to the logic did it impact the election?  No not really.  Does the release of public information or information which relates to potential fraud claims or rigging claims which are subject to investigation through a bill of discovery make people more informed, probably not since they already made up their minds.  Remember there has been no denial that the information is false or incorrect by the parties hacked.  The highlighting of the Clinton violations by Weiner and his wife’s laptop as part of an investigation merely served as a reminder not by a foreign government but by New York City Law Enforcement during its investigations of Weiner’s predatory conduct of minors. 

Did the New York Times try to influence the election?  Isn’t one if it major shareholders a Mexican billionaire (actually one of the richest people on earth) who has control over the Mexican government and its telecommunication systems.  HMMM? 

Sarah Palin’s yahoo webmail account was hacked by some high school kid back in 2008.   John Podesta email account was a gmail account, or a web mail account like General Petraeus web mail account.  Podesta’s emails were certainly obtained illegally but it was a poor choice knowing what he knew about web email accounts.  Also remember this - who knows if the Clintons “lost” or “destroyed” laptops and IPhones and Blackberries were found by someone and the information obtained by turning them on.  Yes it is private and so was Billy Bush conversation.  But a third party had it so it went public. 

Does that information being made public change how people voted?  Does that influence the election?  Probably not.  The reason is the fact that the Electoral College went one way based upon multiple states proving States rights are alive – and the popular vote went the other way due to two large States New York and California; these results tell us that the release of the information really had no influence on the election. For those of us who looked at the polls read the underlying data and those of us who could not understand why the polling conclusions conflicted with the data – tells me- that there was no real influence.    I will note the conclusions of the pollsters where influenced by the releases of the hacked emails and the Weiner laptop but the underlying data before and after in those polls was not really did not change, the pollsters just over sampled and over emphasized certain data in their conclusions, just look at the polling data on real clear politics, they just did not balance the numbers.  I believe based upon the proper weighing of the polling data, essentially my opinion is - that this was why President Trump was saying that the election was rigged because if he lost it did not jive with the actual polling data that his campaign was collecting. 

Do hearing subject all of these sources to re-disclosure for confirmation that the information is true, that the primary was rigged and that the campaign manager has certain feelings about folks who vote that is not flattering or that Wieners laptop should be sifted thru, WELL I guess hearing would. 

Friday, September 23, 2016

LA Rams Want Conn. Ticket Suit Sent To Mo. - Jason L. McCoy of the McCoy Law Firm

 LA Rams Want Conn. Ticket Suit Sent To Mo.

"Law360, New York (September 23, 2016, 4:07 PM EDT) -- The Los Angeles Rams asked a Connecticut federal judge to send a suit brought by real estate lender RCN Capital LLC to Missouri federal court on Wednesday, where it can be handled alongside a similar, pending class action over the team’s seat licenses.

In its Wednesday motion, the Rams asked the judge to transfer the case, which accuses the team of misleading and defrauding ticket buyers who had purchased personal seat licenses before the Rams decided to leave St. Louis, to the Eastern District of Missouri.

The team claims that the Personal Seat License agreement at the heart of the claims in this suit contains a covenant that requires the case to be handled in that state’s court system, according to a memorandum in support of the transfer motion.

“The clear and unambiguous forum selection clause appeared on the face of all PSL agreements that governed licenses to the stadium in St. Louis,” the memorandum said. “Plaintiff itself signed transfer forms acknowledging that RCN Capital was bound by all the terms and conditions of the PSL agreements.”

Currently, the Rams added, a proposed class of St. Louis Rams season ticket holders’ suit is pending in Missouri federal court, which means that it would be more efficient to consolidate the cases. Those season ticket holders seek reimbursement for time left on the now useless seat licenses.

A separate motion to dismiss was also filed on Wednesday. The motion, filed as an alternative to the transfer motion, argues that RCN’s failure to adhere to the forum selection clause in the agreement warrants dismissal of the suit.

Representatives for both parties did not immediately respond Wednesday to requests for comment.

The South Windsor, Connecticut-based real estate lender filed suit in the state’s court on July 28, accusing the Rams of failing to honor the seat license the company paid for, selling the tickets it reserved and now charging higher prices for tickets. That suit was removed to federal court in late August.

Before the team moved, it sold RCN Capital a “charter personal seat license” to expire in 2025 for $238,350, the complaint said. The license entitled it to buy tickets for preseason and season tickets for Rams home games.

But the Rams now refuse to sell season tickets to RCN and have failed to provide the real estate lender with any notice that its season tickets have been revoked, according to the complaint that accuses the team of bad faith breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations and statutory theft.

RCN Capital is represented by Jason L. McCoy of the McCoy Law Firm.

The Los Angeles Rams are represented by Diane Westwood Wilson of Dentons.

The case is RCN Capital LLC v. The Los Angeles Rams LLC et al., case number 2:16-cv-01481, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

--Additional reporting by Joyce Hanson. Editing by Emily Kokoll."

Real Estate Co. Hits NFL’s Rams With Ticket Sales Suit

 Real Estate Co. Hits NFL’s Rams With Ticket Sales Suit

"Law360, New York (September 1, 2016, 3:54 PM EDT) -- RCN Capital LLC, a private real estate lender, has filed suit accusing the Los Angeles Rams of failing to honor the seat license the company paid for, selling the tickets it reserved and now charging higher prices for tickets.

South Windsor, Connecticut-based RCN Capital, in a July 28 suit that appeared in the state court docket on Wednesday, charged that the National Football League and the Rams misled and defrauded ticket buyers who had previously purchased personal seat licenses before the Rams decided this year to move to Los Angeles from St. Louis.

Before the team moved, it sold RCN Capital a “charter personal seat license” to expire in 2025 for $238,350, the complaint said. The license entitled it to buy tickets for preseason and season tickets for Rams home games.

But the Rams now refuse to sell season tickets to RCN and have failed to provide the real estate lender with any notice that its season tickets have been revoked, according to the complaint that accuses the team of bad faith breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations and statutory thef.

“The defendant Rams and the defendant NFL ... has a pattern and practice of accepting payments for purchase of season tickets in the primary market, selling the purchased season tickets to multiple parties, overselling the seating in the primary market, then holding on to the purchasers’ money, as an interest-free loan, using the money for a period of time and not delivering the tickets to all parties who paid for tickets in the primary market,” RCN charged.

In 1994, the Rams moved from Los Angeles to St. Louis, and in 2016 the team returned to L.A. and its old stadium, the L.A. Memorial Coliseum, which it hasn’t played in since 1979 and is in need of major repairs. Rather than renovate, however, Rams owner Stan Kroenke plans to build by 2019 a new $2.6 billion stadium on a different site that can accommodate a 300-acre complex with 80,000 seats.

Funding for the stadium is to come from charter personal seat licenses, Rams club memberships, NFL tickets and ticket options agreements, according to RCN Capital’s complaint.

Don Vaccaro,  founder of RCN Capital, told Law360 in an email that RCN had “no choice” but to file the action.

“The Rams’ treatment of the personal seat license holders is unconscionable and we believe violates both Federal and State laws,” Vaccaro said.

Representatives for the Los Angeles Rams did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.

RCN Capital is represented by Jason L. McCoy of the McCoy Law Firm.

The Los Angeles Rams are represented by Diane Westwood Wilson of Dentons.

The case is RCN Capital LLC v. The Los Angeles Rams LLC et al., case number 2:16-cv-01481, in the Connecticut Superior Court, Tolland County, Connecticut.

--Editing by Patricia K. Cole"

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Suburban politicians discuss primary process

Suburban politicians discuss primary process