Posts tagged with "jurisdiction"

My Child Has Been Moved Out-of-State and May Be Suffering from Abuse, What Should I Do?

If you believe that your child is the victim of abuse you should contact the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the authorities immediately to report the abuse.  If your child is no longer living in Connecticut DCF may not be able to assist because they are a Connecticut resource.  It would be beneficial to contact a similar resource in whatever state your child is currently residing in.

Further, if your child has been moved out of Connecticut, their residency has been affected.  Jurisdiction will depend on where your child is currently residing.  Regardless of where your child has been relocated to, your divorce decree will still be valid in Connecticut and should be recognized in every state.  You may need to register your Connecticut divorce decree in the new state as an out-of-state judgment in order to have it enforced.

This is a complex issue as you are now possibly dealing with court systems in two different states.  A family attorney will be able to educate you on your rights and options in this situation.  If you have any questions related to family law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Assets Protected From Creditors in Connecticut

In today’s economy more and more people find themselves having a hard time paying the bills and avoiding late payments.  Still others have a problem with creditors chasing them for unpaid debts.  Now more than ever it is important for you to know what assets are protected from creditors and what are not.

Connecticut law provides some protection from creditors in a situation where your income or assets are subject to a court judgment or lien.  You can protect yourself in a variety of ways by planning ahead and consulting with a professional financial planner and an attorney.   Taking out liability insurance or setting up a corporate entity or trust for your property are examples of how you can shield your assets from future creditors.  However, there are some individual assets that are automatically protected from creditors.  Here is brief summary of the law in Connecticut:

A.            Wages

Once a creditor obtains a judgment against you, it can apply for an execution against your wages.  See Connecticut General Statutes, Section 52-361a.  Connecticut law does provide for some protection in this situation.   No more than twenty-five percent of an individual’s weekly disposable earnings may be subject to a wage execution.  The portion of disposable earnings subject to the wage execution is withheld and applied to the amount of the judgment.    In some cases, the maximum amount that can be withheld may be less depending upon the ratio between the individual’s disposable earnings and the hourly minimum wage in effect at the time of the execution.

B.             Retirement Plans

Generally, retirement plans are exempt from claims by creditors.  Both IRAs and 401ks are protected assets pursuant to Connecticut General Statues, Section 52-321a.

C.             Personal Property

Connecticut law provides a list of exempt personal property that creditors cannot claim an interest in pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes, Section 52-352b.  The list of property includes basics necessities such as apparel, bedding, foodstuffs, household furniture and appliances.  Items necessary for a person’s occupation or profession such as tools, books, instruments, farm animals and livestock feed are also considered exempt property.  Wedding and engagement rings are not subject to creditor claims as well.

D.             Insurance and Government Assistance Payments

Some insurance and government assistance payments are exempt from creditors under Connecticut General Statutes, Section 52-352b.   Health and disability insurance payments are exempt as are Workers’ compensation, Social Security, veterans and unemployment benefits.  In addition, under Connecticut General Statutes, Section 38a-453, creditors of an insured cannot seek payment from a life insurance policy beneficiary under most circumstances.

E.             Child Support and Alimony Payments

Any court approved child support payments received by a debtor are exempt and protected from creditors.  Alimony payments, to the extent that wages are exempt from creditor claims, are also protected.  See Connecticut General Statutes, Sections 52-352b & 52-361a.

F.             Real Estate

Your homestead or personal residence is exempt from creditor claims up to the value of seventy-five thousand dollars.  If a creditor has a money judgment arising out of hospital services, then the value of the exemption increases to one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars.  The exemption is calculated based upon the fair market value of the equity in the property taking into account any statutory or consensual liens on the property.  See Connecticut General Statutes, Section 52-352b.

There is no such exemption in place for commercial real estate or rental properties.

G.             Motor Vehicles

Only one motor vehicle is exempt from creditor claims up to the value of one thousand five hundred dollars.  The exemption is calculated by estimating the fair market value of the motor vehicle and taking into account any relevant liens or security interests.  See Connecticut General Statutes, Section 52-352b.

H.              Bank Accounts

         A creditor can enforce a judgment by way of a bank execution.  However, the same exemptions apply to bank accounts as they do to government assistance, insurance, alimony and child support payments as outlined above.  Therefore, you have the opportunity to challenge a bank execution based on these exemptions and prevent a creditor from taking money out of your account.   In addition, you can claim a general exemption not to exceed one thousand dollars.

In conclusion, Connecticut law prevents creditors from seizing all of your income, property, possessions and savings pursuant to a judgment or lien.  However, the law does not prevent a debt collector from jeopardizing your livelihood and financial wellbeing.  You best bet is to limit individual liability and plan ahead to avoid a creditor claim in the first place.  Consulting with a professional financial planner and an attorney is recommended.

Court Suppresses Evidence After MTAPD Illegally Arrested DUI Suspect, Citing Jurisdictional Limitations

This April, the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Norwalk granted a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence collected after officers with the Metropolitan Transit Authority Police Department (MTAPD) illegally arrested him. However, the court declined to suppress evidence gathered prior to the arrest.

Case Background

In this case, two MTAPD officers (officers) were traveling along I-95 North in Westport at 2:20am when they witnessed a motor vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed in the leftmost lane. This vehicle repeatedly forced other cars into the center lane, drove over the left solid white line, and abruptly crossed into the other lanes. The officers initiated a traffic stop, though the vehicle stopped partially in an entrance ramp onto I-95.

One of the officers approached the passenger side of the vehicle and saw the defendant as the only occupant. When instructing the defendant to move his car to a safer location, the officer observed the strong odor of alcohol and the defendant’s bloodshot eyes. After backup was requested, the officers asked the defendant for his identification, but he instead spontaneously stated that his license was suspended.

At 2:45am a State trooper (trooper) arrived on the scene, and the MTAPD officers conducted several field sobriety tests, all of which the defendant failed. The defendant was placed under arrest by the officers, who transported him to Westport’s police department for a breathalyzer test. At this point, the trooper was no longer involved. At the police department, the defendant refused to submit to a breath test, and was subsequently charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OMVUI). However, he moved to suppress all evidence, arguing it was inadmissible because the officers illegally arrested him, and filed a motion to dismiss.

Enforcement Powers of Officers

Police officers have the power to arrest within their respective jurisdictions, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-1f(c). MTAPD officers are considered Railroad Police Officers, and their enforcement powers are generally limited to railroad property (except in the case of pursuit). An arrest made outside the statutory parameters is illegal, and the typical remedy is to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the illegal arrest.

The purpose of this exclusionary rule is to ensure that a defendant receives a fair trial. However, an illegal arrest does not outright bar a State from pursuing charges against a defendant, and evidence may still be admissible if acquired “by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.”

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the Superior Court wrote that because I-95 is not railroad property, and the officers were not effectuating their jurisdictional arrest powers as authorized under statute, they did not have authority to arrest the defendant. Therefore, the arrest in this case was illegal, and the Court agreed that all evidence obtained after the defendant was taken into custody, including his refusal to submit to a breath test, could be suppressed.

However, the Court found that the evidence obtained prior to arrest was admissible. The MTAPD officers initiated an investigatory stop, which did not violate § 54-1f(a), and the presence of the trooper, whose jurisdiction includes interstate highways like I-95, rendered administration of the field sobriety tests proper. Therefore, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, and denied his motion to dismiss.

When faced with a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (a.k.a. driving under the influence), an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

Connecticut Federal Court Applies Louisiana Law to Enforce Non-Compete to Protect Confidential Information

In United Rentals, Inc. v. Myers, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25287, United Rental, Inc. was a Delaware corporation with principal business operations in Connecticut that employed Ms. Charlotte Myers in its Shreveport, Louisiana office from May 20, 2002, to March 7, 2003.  She signed an employment agreement with United Rentals on her first day of work that contained non-compete and confidentiality clauses that prohibited employment for a period of twelve months at any competing company located within one hundred miles of a United Rentals location where she worked.

The restrictive covenants further stated that the state and federal courts in Fairfield County, Connecticut would have jurisdiction in the event that legal proceedings ensued.  Upon her voluntary termination from United Rentals, Ms. Myers began to work at Head & Enquist Equipment, Inc., a competitor, at an office located approximately ten miles away from the United Rentals’ Shreveport office.  United Rentals contacted her to remind her of the restrictive covenants and her obligations under them but she continued her employment with Head & Enquist.

The Lawsuit

United Rentals sued Ms. Myers in Connecticut federal court for breach of the non-compete and confidentiality agreements and sought a court injunction to enforce their provisions.  The court found in favor of United Rentals and granted its request to enforce the non-compete agreement.

Ms. Myers presented various arguments to the court to persuade it to deny enforcement of the agreement, but the court ultimately found in favor of United Rentals.  She argued that Louisiana law should be controlling in the legal dispute, and further asserted that Louisiana law does not permit “choice of law” clauses in employment agreements.

The court investigated Ms. Myers’ contention and explained that the proper procedure to determine if a “choice of law” clause is permissible is to consult the law of the state being selected, in this case, that of Connecticut.  Connecticut law however cannot be the “choice of law” state when there is another state with a “materially greater interest…in the determination of the particular issue”.  The court held that Louisiana did in fact have a greater interest in the dispute and thus Louisiana law was applicable and controlling for the case.

The Court’s Decision

Although Louisiana law is less than favorable to United Rentals with regard to “choice of law” clauses, it still recognizes that parties are entitled to a remedy in connection with a violation of a confidentiality agreement “if the material sought to be protected is in fact confidential”.  Courts generally view the disclosure of confidential information as sufficient evidence for a company to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not granted.

During her employment with the company, Ms. Myers was exposed to and had access to United Rentals’ trade secrets, contract details, customer data, financial information, and marketing plans/strategies.  The court held that this was clearly sensitive and confidential information, the content of which entitled United Rentals to protection in the form of a court-ordered injunction.

The court held for United Rentals despite applying Louisiana law in response to Ms. Myers’ justified assertion that this specific “choice of law” provision was not valid.  Although Louisiana law shuns “choice of law” provisions in non-compete agreements, it does support injunctions when it is necessary and proper for a company to protect its confidential business information.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Application of FINRA Rules & Regulations for Bank’s Employment Agreement

Webster Bank, N.A. v. Cahill, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1672

Webster Bank is a regional commercial bank with business operations in lower New England that employed Mr. Daniel Cahill from April 11, 1995 to February 12, 2009.  He was hired as a teller in the bank’s Bristol, CT office and was promoted to a financial consultant in 2001 to work for Webster Investment Services, the securities division of Webster Bank.  The bank entered into a corporate arrangement with UVEST in 2007 and Mr. Cahill (and similar employees) had to sign a dual employment agreement.

The contract detailed the terms of his employment and contained multiple restrictive covenants.  Mr. Cahill was prohibited from engaging in competing business activities within twenty-five miles of his base of operations for one year following his termination and was subject to an indefinite non-disclosure clause for Webster and UVEST’s confidential and proprietary information.

Mr. Cahill faxed in a letter of resignation to Webster on February 12, 2009 and the next day began working for RBC Bank in its Hartford, CT office where he essentially performed the same duties as he done during his employment with Webster.  Webster sued Mr. Cahill in Connecticut state court for the enforcement of the restrictive covenants contained in the dual employment agreement.

Mr. Cahill admitted that RBC was a direct competitor of Webster, that his new office is within the twenty-five mile radius prohibited area, that he had taken with him a list of 2,900-3,000 Webster customers, and had send solicitation letter on RBC’s stationary to all of those customers.  Of these solicitations, 350-400 accounts transferred their assets to RBC, amounting to a loss of approximately $5 million in assets under management for Webster.

Employment Contract Violation

Mr. Cahill admitted that he violated the terms of the dual employment contract but argued that the court should not enforce the non-compete agreement because he was a “licensed and registered securities dealer and a financial representative”, and therefore the  rules and regulations of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) governed and he had done nothing wrong.

He contended that under FINRA regulations, in an agreement referred to as the “Protocol”, he was permitted to take a copy of the customer list when he moved from Webster to RBC.  These regulations permit taking a copy of names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses but not account numbers.  The court found that the assertion lacked jurisdiction and was unpersuasive, and noted that FINRA was not controlling since neither Webster Bank nor UVEST were signatory members of the “Protocol”.

The court concluded that it did have jurisdiction over the case and next looked to whether the non-compete agreement was valid and enforceable under Connecticut law.  Webster had a legitimate business interest that the court held warranted protection in the form of an injunction to restrict Mr. Cahill’s activities.  An injunction, according to the court, was necessary to maintain the status quo and protect the interests of the parties involved in the legal dispute.  The court held that the restrictions were reasonable in scope and did not overtly favor one party over the other.  After establishing a need for an injunction and the reasonableness of the restrictions, the court ordered the enforcement of the non-compete agreement.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Connecticut Law Governs Non-Compete for Employee Based in Company’s Brazil Office

MacDermid, Inc. v. Selle, 535 F.Supp.2d 308

Mr. Raymond Selle worked for MacDermid, Inc. for thirty years in various capacities at facilities in Connecticut, Maryland, and Sao Paulo, Brazil.  MacDermid is a specialty chemical company engaged in a range of development, manufacture, and sale of chemicals and their corresponding processes.  Mr. Selle resigned from the company in 2007 while stationed in Brazil and immediately began work at Enthone, a West Haven based company with a presence in Brazil, as its South American New Business Development Manager.  MacDermid brought suit against Mr. Selle to enforce employment agreements from 1996 and 2002, seeking to prevent his employment at Enthone and the disclosure of confidential information.

MacDermid’s basis for legal action was two restrictive covenants signed by Mr. Selle and the vast amount of confidential information he acquired while employed at MacDermid.

Employment Agreement

The first “Employee’s Agreement” was signed November 24, 1996 and included a one-year non-compete agreement prohibiting employment with an industry competitor and an indefinite confidentiality agreement.  Mr. Selle signed a second non-compete and non-disclosure agreement on June 25, 2022 when he began his position at MacDermid’s Sao Paulo office.

Additionally, the agreement stipulated that its provisions were to be “construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Connecticut, without regard to conflict of law principles”.  MacDermid sought to enforce both the one-year non-compete clause and the indefinite confidentiality clause.  The company claimed that Mr. Selle was privy to considerable confidential information while employed there, including business strategies, research & development projects, and customer contact information and transaction history.

The Court’s Decision

The federal court found in favor of MacDermid, enjoined Mr. Selle from employment with Enthone or any other of MacDermid’s industry competitor until September 10, 2008 (the duration of the one-year prohibition), and enjoined him from disclosing any confidential or proprietary knowledge acquired during his employment with MacDermid.  The court found that there was “no basis for doubting the validity and enforceability of his [Selle’s] 1996 and 2002 employment agreements with MacDermid”.  Mr. Selle’s tried to make the claim that the restrictive covenants were too broad and favored the employer but the court concluded that the covenant’s provisions were narrow and limited in scope so as not to dramatically disadvantage the employee.

The court also discussed and decided what jurisdiction’s law to apply.  Mr. Selle argued that Brazilian law should govern the agreement and legal proceedings since that was where he found new employment at Enthone.  Mr. Selle made this assertion because he felt that Brazilian law reflects a fundamental public policy against the enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment contracts.  The court however held that Connecticut law superseded Brazilian law in this case and would govern the restrictive covenant, as specified and agreed to in the 1996 and 2002 agreements.

Conclusion

This case shows that in certain restrictive covenants, Connecticut law (or any state’s law) can be governing even when employment takes the employee out of the country.  The choice of law provision establishes the controlling legal principles (in this case, those of Connecticut) of the restrictive covenant and is characterized by global application.

If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.