Tov V'Chesed Foundation v. Ghent et al
ORDER/Memorandum of Decision granting 129 Motion to Dismiss Fourth and Eighth Counts of the Third Party Complaint and granting 148 Motion to Dismiss for the reasons set forth in the attached decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 1-18-2023. (Shafer, J.)
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MARTIN STERN AND ABRAHAM
STERN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS
TRUSTEES OF TOV V’CHESED
ROBERT E. GHENT,
LAWLOR TITLE GROUP, LLC,
GHENT REALTY ADVISORS, LLC,
DEVELOPERS, LLC, Defendant;
JOHN DEVINE, Defendant; JOHN
DEVINE & ASSOCIATES,
Defendant; AND JOHN DEVINE
LAW FIRM, Defendant;
ZALMAN KOMAR; EVERGREEN
FUNDING COMPANY OF NEW
YORK; DAVID SPORN; FOUR
STAR FUNDING, INCORPORATED,
No. 3:20-cv-01919 (VLB)
January 18, 2023
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT [DKTS. 129, 148]
This case is about a “hard money” loan gone wrong. Plaintiffs Martin and
Abraham Stern, trustees of a New York-based charitable trust, Tov V’Chesed
Foundation, loaned $2.5 million to Moustapha Diakhate and his company, Ansonia
Developers, LLC (“ADL”), in exchange for a mortgage against ADL’s real property
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 15
in Ansonia, Connecticut. 1
Plaintiffs allege that Diakhate and his real estate
advisors, Robert Ghent and John Devine, made false representations on which
they relied during the transaction.
Plaintiffs bring claims of Fraud, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract,
Breach of Guaranty, a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b, et seq., and Civil Conspiracy against Diakhate; ADL;
Ghent; Lawlor Title Group, LLC and Ghent Realty Advisors, LLC (Ghent’s
companies); Devine, and John Devine & Associates and John Devine Law Firm LLP
(Devine’s companies). In turn, Robert Ghent and his companies have filed a ThirdParty Complaint against Zalman Komar, Evergreen Funding Company of New York,
David Sporn, and Four Star Funding, Incorporated, alleging these four Third-Party
Defendants—who served as mortgage brokers during the transaction—are liable
for Indemnification and Apportionment.
The Third-Party Defendants now move to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint
in its entirety. The Ghent Defendants failed to respond. For the below reasons, the
Third-Party Complaint is DISMISSED.
Plaintiffs Martin and Abraham Stern are trustees of Tov V’Chesed
Foundation (“Tov Foundation”), a charitable trust registered in New York. (Dkt. 68
(First Am. Compl.) ¶ 11.)
A “hard money” loan is one in which “an owner of mortgaged property borrows new
money and secures this loan with a mortgage against the existing property.” 2 L.
Distressed Real Est. § 26:5 (Nov. 2022).
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 15
There are several groups of Defendants. 2
First, the three “Ghent
Defendants.” Defendant Robert Ghent is a Connecticut resident who is a licensed
real estate broker. (Dkt. 68 ¶¶ 12, 26.) He is the sole member of two Connecticut
companies: Defendant Lawlor Title Group, LLC (“Lawlor Group”), a provider of real
estate title services; and Defendant Ghent Realty Advisors, LLC (“Ghent Realty”),
a real estate brokerage and advisory firm. (Id. í í *KHQW KROGV
himself out to be a real estate “expert.” (Id. ¶ 31.) While he used to practice law,
he was suspended from 2014 through 2019. (Id. ¶ 29.)
The second group of Defendants is the two “Diakhate Defendants.”
Defendant Moustapha Diakhate, a Connecticut resident, is the sole member of
Defendant Ansonia Developers, LLC (“ADL”), which is incorporated in Delaware
but located in Connecticut. (Id. í
The third group is the three “Devine Defendants.” Defendant John Devine is
an attorney licensed to practice law in Connecticut. (Id. +HKDVH[SHULHQFH
in real estate law and practices with Defendant John Devine & Associates (“Devine
& Associates”) and Defendant John Devine Law Firm LLP (“Devine Firm”), two
Connecticut law firms. (Id. í
The Ghent Defendants are also Third-Party Plaintiffs. They have brought
Indemnification and Apportionment claims against Zalman Komar, Evergreen
Funding Company of New York (“Evergreen”), David Sporn, and Four Star Funding,
Plaintiffs initially named Blue Ribbon, LLC; Charles A. Liberti; Raymond R. Miller, Sr.
(collectively, “Blue Ribbon Defendants”); and Thomas W. Calkins as defendants. Plaintiffs
have since stipulated to their dismissal. (See Dkts. 90, 146.) These dismissed defendants
are not included as Defendants in this decision.
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 15
Incorporated (“Four Star”) (collectively, “Third-Party Defendants”).
(Third-Party Compl.).) Komar and Sporn are mortgage brokers licensed in New
York. (Id. íKomar specializes in “hard money lending.” (Id.) Their
companies—Evergreen and Four Star, respectively—are New York mortgage
companies that provides financial services. (Id. íí
Plaintiffs’ Operative Complaint
The Diakhate Defendants sought a $2.5 million mortgage loan from the Tov
Foundation concerning a set of contiguous real properties located at 1 West Main
Street and 35 Main Street in Ansonia, Connecticut (“Ansonia Properties”).3 (Dkt.
68 ¶¶ 1, 36.) ,Q-DQXDU\the property was appraised in “average condition”
worth $4.9 million. (Id. ¶ 40.)
Diakhate and Ghent represented that Attorneys
Ghent and Devine were “acting as counsel” for the transaction. (Id. ¶¶ í
Defendants represented that one of the tenants, WK Development, LLC
(“Tenant”), held a triple net lease; paid a $55,000 monthly rent; and intended to
purchase the Ansonia Properties for $4.5 million. (Id. íDefendants stated
that the Tenant had already put $500,000 in escrow with Devine (“Escrow”). (Id.)
2Q 1RYHPEHU WKH *KHQW 'HIHQGDQWV SURYLGHG D WLWOH VHDUFK Dnd
public records search on the Ansonia Properties and the Diakhate Defendants. (Id.
¶ 46.) The search revealed two mortgages on the Ansonia Properties. The first
was a secured blanket mortgage held by Harrison, Vickers & Waterman LLC, which
was recorded in the Ansonia land records on 0DUFK (“HVM Mortgage”). (Id.
The second was a mortgage to Yeladim, LLC; Trustee Cynthia Lois Selmon;
This mortgage loan will hereinafter be referred to as the “Tov Mortgage Loan.”
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 15
and West Main Ansonia, LLC (collectively, “Yeladim Lenders”), to secure a debt on
the principal amount of $3 million. (Id. ¶ 48.) This mortgage (“Yeladim Mortgage”)
was recorded in the Ansonia land records on June 14, 2016. (Id. ¶ 49.)
2Q 'HFHPEHU a release concerning the Yeladim Mortgage was
recorded in the Ansonia land records (“Release”). (Id. ¶ 49.) Ghent e-mailed the
Tov Foundation’s counsel the next day stating the Release had been fully executed.
(Id. ¶ 51.)
Ghent also furnished a “Lien, Judgement, & Litigation Report”
representing that “ADL was not subject to any state tax liens, federal tax liens,
judgment liens, UCC, or litigation.” (Id. ¶ 52.)
To induce the Tov Foundation to loan the $2.5 million, the Ghent, Diakhate
and Devine Defendants supplied several documents. (Id. íThey are: (1)
the Tenant’s agreement to subordinate the rights to the Tov Mortgage Loan., (id.);
(2) ADL’s assignment to the Tov Foundation concerning its right to the Escrow,
(id.); and (3) a letter from Ghent representing that he was familiar with ADL’s and
Diakhate’s “affairs,” had examined all the records and documents, and that the Tov
Mortgage Loan documents were enforceable, (id. ¶í.
2Q 'HFHPEHU Whe Tov Mortgage Loan closed and the Tov
Foundation loaned ADL $2.5 million. (Id. ¶ 56.) ADL executed a note for $2.5 million
(“Tov Note”) and an Open-End Mortgage Deed and Security Agreement to secure
the Tov Note with the Ansonia Properties. (Id. ¶ 60.) The Tov Mortgage Loan was
recorded on the Ansonia land records. (Id.) As further security, ADL executed an
Assignment of Leases and Rents to the Tov Foundation and Diakhate guaranteed
payment—personally, unconditionally and absolutely—of the Tov Note.
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 6 of 15
Ghent Realty was paid $44,033.52, Lawlor Group was paid $1,200.00, Calkins was
paid $6,650.00, and the remainder was delivered to an account controlled by Ghent
for the benefit of ADL. (Id. ¶ 59.) Eight months later, ADL defaulted on the Tov
Mortgage Loan. (Id. ¶ 62.)
Plaintiffs allege that the Tov Foundation loaned ADL $2.5 million in reliance
on the following misrepresentations: (a) the Ansonia Properties were valuable and
in average condition; (b) the Tenant occupied the Ansonia Properties, paid
substantial annual rent under its lease, intended to purchase Ansonia Properties
for $4.5 million, and Devine held $500,000 in escrow; (c) the Tov Mortgage Loan
would be the first mortgage lien against Ansonia Properties after payment of the
HVW Mortgage; (d) the Yeladim Mortgage was no longer an encumbrance; (e) ADL
had good title to Ansonia Properties; and (f) there were no pending or threatened
proceedings against ADL that might affect the Ansonia Properties. (Id.
After the Tov Mortgage Loan deal closed, several issues concerning the
Ansonia Properties surfaced. First, it turned out Diakhate owned a company,
Washington Management, LLC (“Washington Management”), that filed for
bankruptcy in March 2016—this company held a predecessor title to the Ansonia
Properties and, in February 2018, it initiated an adversary proceeding to reverse
the property transfer from Washington Management to ADL. (Id. ¶¶ 63í66.) In sum,
ADL’s title to the Ansonia Properties was allegedly voidable. (Id.) Second, Yeladim
claimed the Yeladim Mortgage release was forged and void. (Id. ,Q HDUO\
2020, the Yeladim Lenders instituted a foreclosure action on the Yeladim Mortgage
against ADL, the Tov Foundation, and Diakhate.
(Id. ¶ 68.)
Third, the Tov
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 7 of 15
Foundation discovered the Tenant never agreed to purchase Ansonia Properties
for $4.5 million and ceased paying rent due to their dilapidated conditions. (Id. ¶
The Ghent Defendants’ Third-Party Complaint
Komar acted as an agent and mortgage broker for the Diakhate Defendants
in the Tov Mortgage Loan. (Dkt. 119 ¶¶ í$IWHUEHLQJLQWURGXFHGE\DPXWXDO
friend, Komar identified the Tov Foundation as a potential lender. (Id. ¶¶ 31í.)
Komar negotiated the terms of the Tov Mortgage Loan and presented the terms to
Diakhate, and Sporn assisted him in these efforts. (Id.)
Komar instructed Diakhate to present a forged release of the Yeladim
Mortgage so the Ansonia Properties could be used as a security for the Tov
Mortgage Loan. (Id. ¶¶ 38, 49.) Komar orchestrated and then forged the release
himself. (Id. ¶¶ 3í
Both Komar and Sporn failed to properly investigate ADL’s and Diakhate’s
assets to determine if they could repay the Tov Mortgage Loan. (Id. í
They also failed to properly investigate whether Diakhate could be a guarantor for
the Tov Mortgage Loan. (Id.)
In reliance on Komar’s and Sporn’s actions, the Tov Foundation entered into
a loan transaction that is unsecured based on the forged release and includes an
improper guarantor. (See id. ¶¶ 6, 19.) The Ghent Defendants assert the following
claims: (1) Common Law Indemnification against each Third-Party Defendant
(Counts One through Four) for (a) failure to take adequate steps to ensure the
documents were not forged, (b) failure to adequately investigate the Diakhate
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 8 of 15
Defendants’ assets, (c) failure to take adequate steps to ensure the Diakhate
Defendants’ statements and representations were true, (d) instruction to Diakhate
to produce forged documents concerning the Yeladim Mortgage Release, and (e)
failure to exercise due care; and (2) Apportionment from all Third-Party Defendants
(Counts Five through Eight) should the Ghent Defendants be held liable for the Tov
Foundation’s damages. (Id. í
Plaintiffs commenced this action on December 23, 2020.
(See Dkt. 1
(Compl.).) After summonses were fully executed, Defendants responded in March
and April 2021. (See Dkts. 36 (Calkins Mot. Dismiss Count Six), 40 (Ghent Defs.’
Ans.), 42 (Blue Ribbon Def.’s Mot. Dismiss), 63 (Diakhate Def.’s Mot. Dismiss).) On
April 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. 68.)
Plaintiffs bring the following claims: (1) Fraud against all Defendants; (2)
Misrepresentation against all Defendants; (3) Breach of Contract against ADL; (4)
Breach of Guaranty against Diakhate; (5) a CUTPA violation against the Ghent and
Diakhate Defendants; and (6) Civil Conspiracy against all Defendants.
On June 22, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for partial judgment on the pleadings
against the Diakhate Defendants on Counts Three and Four. (See Dkt. 82 (Mot.
The Diakhate Defendants did not contest the motion, conceding ADL
defaulted on the Tov Note payments and that, due to the default, Diakhate was in
breach of his personal guaranty. (See Dkt. 88 (Def.’s 12(c) Response).) After
reviewing the record, the Court granted partial judgment on Counts Three and
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 9 of 15
Four, in relevant part, in the amount of $4,169,103 with post-judgment interest to
accrue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (Dkt. 96 (Order re Partial J.).)
In October 2021, the Court stayed and administratively closed the case after
being alerted by the parties of a pending criminal proceeding against Defendant
Diakhate. (Dkt. 109 (Order).)
The Court also permitted the Ghent Defendants to
file a Third-Party Complaint. (Dkt. 101 (Mot. Leave) & 105 (Order).) The Court
ordered the parties to notify it when the criminal matter resolves. (Dkts. 142 & 152.)
This case remains closed.
On January 19, 2022, the Ghent Defendants filed their Third-Party Complaint
against Komar, Evergreen, Sporn, and Four Star seeking indemnification and
apportionment for their role in the Tov Mortgage Loan transaction. (Dkt. 119.) Four
Star moved to dismiss the counts lodged against it on February 28, 2022. (Dkt. 129
(Four Star Mot. Dismiss).) The other three Defendants moved to dismiss the counts
against them on April 8, 2022. 4 (Dkt. 148 (Komar, Evergreen, Sporn Mot. Dismiss).)
The Ghent Defendants never responded.
Third-Party Defendants seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(2) allows a party to assert by motion
a defense that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(6) allows a party to
assert by motion a defense that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
For these parties, the deadline to file the Motion to Dismiss was March 31, 2022.
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 10 of 15
To successfully defeat a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2), the “plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has
jurisdiction over the defendant.” In re Magnetic Audiotape Antitrust Litig., 334 F.3d
204, 206 (2d Cir. 2003). The burden varies depending on the procedural posture of
the case. See Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A.)GG&LU
1990); Am. Wholesalers Underwriting, Ltd. v. Am. Wholesale Ins. Group, Inc., 312
dismiss made before any discovery only needs to allege facts constituting a prima
facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
883 F.3d 68, 81 (2d Cir. 2018); Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner)GG
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal86 (2009).
Not all allegations in a complaint are entitled to the presumption of truth. Id. “In
adjudicating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must confine its consideration
to facts stated on the face of the complaint, in documents appended to the
complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and to matters of which
judicial notice may be taken.” Rivera v. Westchester Cty)6XSSG–
6'1<0) (citing to Leonard F. v. Isr. Disc. Bank of N.Y)G
(2d Cir. 1999)). The defendant bears the burden of proof on a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See Sobel v. Prudenti, 25 F. Supp. 3d
340, 352 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 11 of 15
As the District of Connecticut’s Local Rules provide, “Failure to submit a
memorandum in opposition to a motion may be deemed sufficient cause to grant
the motion, except where the pleadings provide sufficient grounds to deny the
motion.” D. &RQQ / &LY 5 D Accordingly, the district court must still
“consider the pleadings and determine whether they contain sufficient grounds for
denying a motion to dismiss.” Goldberg v. Danaher, 599 F.3d 181, 183 (2d Cir.
Otherwise, the “except clause” in the rule would have no meaning. See id.
The Third-Party Defendants move to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint in its
entirety. 5 First, they allege the Indemnification claims (Counts One through Four)
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), because the Ghent Defendants have
failed to plead three out of four elements of the underlying negligence claim.6 (Dkt.
148 at 1.) Second, for the Apportionment claims (Counts Five through Eight), they
allege two arguments: a) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them under
Rule 12(b)(2), because the claims are untimely under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b(a);
and b) the Ghent Defendants fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted
under Rule 12(b)(6), because they have not alleged a negligence claim under Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 52-K. Id.
Four Star filed a Motion to Dismiss independently from Komar, Sporn and Evergreen.
Nonetheless, the substance of the two pending motions is word-for-word identical.
Accordingly, the Court will refer to the motions as if they are a single filing.
The Third-Party Defendants raise another argument: the Ghent Defendants have not
alleged negligence against them (rather, they allege negligence against the Plaintiffs).
Because the Court dismisses the Indemnification claims based on the above argument, it
need not address this one. The Court notes that the Third-Party Defendants’ case law on
this issue is inapplicable because it concerns situations in which negligence claims are
brought, which is not the situation here.
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 12 of 15
Common law indemnification is “an action that arises between two
tortfeasors, ‘one, whose passive negligence resulted in a monetary recovery by the
plaintiff; and a second, whose active negligence renders him liable to the first by
way of reimbursement.” ATC P’ship v. Coats N. Am. Consol., Inc.&RQQ
TXRWLQJSmith v. New Haven, 258 Conn. 56, 66 (2001)); Endurance Am.
Specialty Ins. Co. v. William Kramer & Assocs., LLC, No. 18:cv-00192 (MPS), 2020
WL 5548855, at *4 (D. Conn. Sept. 16, 2020) (“Connecticut courts distinguish
between ‘active or primary negligence,’ and ‘passive or secondary negligence.’”).
For liability between tortfeasors to shift, the defendant must allege:
(1) the party against whom the indemnification is sought was
negligent; (2) that party’s active negligence, rather than the
defendant’s own passive negligence, was the direct, immediate cause
of the accident . . . ; (3) the other party was in control of the situation
to the exclusion of the defendant seeking reimbursement; and (4) the
defendant did not know of the other party’s negligence, had no reason
to anticipate it, and reasonably could rely on the other party not to be
Smith, 258 Conn at 66.
The Third-Party Defendants argue that the Ghent Defendants fail to allege
facts establishing the second, third and fourth elements. The Court has evaluated
the Third-Party Complaint and agrees. For example, the pleadings do not even
suggest that any of the Third-Party Defendants were “in control of the situation to
the exclusion” of the Ghent Defendants. See id. Rather, the pleadings establish
the Third-Party Defendants were “agents of” the Diakhate Defendants, just as the
Ghent Defendants served as counsel to the Diakhate Defendants. (See Dkt. 119 ¶¶
í Taking as true that Komar forged the Yeladim Mortgage Release and
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 13 of 15
instructed Diakhate to present the Release, (see id. í WKH RQO\ RWKHU
alleged unlawful conduct was Komar’s and Sporn’s failure to properly investigate
the Diakhate Defendants’ assets. (See id. ¶¶ í 7KHVH DOOHJDWLRQV GR QRW
absolve the Ghent Defendants from Plaintiffs’ allegations that they “procured a title
report and allegedly acted as counsel,” “produced a forged release,” “fraudulently
claimed that the Ansonia [P]roperties were free and clear of any encumbrances
giving the Tov Mortgage Loan a position of first priority,” and that other documents
were forged and/or false. (Id. í After assessing Plaintiffs’ and Third-Party
Plaintiffs’ operative pleadings, the Court finds the allegations a) indicate both the
Ghent Defendants and the Third-Party Defendants were active participants, b) fail
to establish anyone was in control at the exclusion of another, and c) do not
address the Ghent Defendants’ knowledge with respect to the Third-Party
Therefore, Counts One through Four of the Third-Party
Complaint are DISMISSED.
The Third-Party Defendants argue the Apportionment claims should be
dismissed for two reasons.
First, they are untimely under § 52-102b of the
Connecticut General Statutes. Second, they fail to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, because the doctrine of apportionment applies only to negligence,
and the underlying complaint does not assert a negligence claim.
The first argument fails for the same reason that the second argument is
successful. As Third-Party Defendants point out, Plaintiffs have raised claims of
Fraud, Misrepresentation, a CUTPA violation, and Civil Conspiracy against the
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 14 of 15
Ghent Defendants and the Ghent Defendants have raised Indemnification and
Apportionment claims. The apportionment statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-102b,
only applies to negligence actions where multiple tortfeasors are liable. See Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 52-102b(a) (permitting a “defendant in any civil action to which section
52-K DSSOLHV´ WR ILOH D FRPSODLQW against a non-party who may be liable for a
proportionate share of the damages). To the extent that the Ghent Defendants have
alleged the Third-Party Defendants’ conduct is negligent, they cannot apportion
their liability to the intentional torts and statutory violations of which they are
accused. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-KR³>7@KHUHVKDOOEHQRDSSRUWLRQPHQWRI
liability or damages between parties liable for negligence and parties liable on any
basis other than negligence including, but not limited to, intentional, wanton or
reckless misconduct, strict liability or liability pursuant to any cause of action
created by statute . . . .”). For these reasons, the Court finds the Ghent Defendants
have failed to state viable Apportionment claims. Because the apportionment
statute does not apply, the Third-Party Defendants’ timeliness argument is
similarly inapplicable here. Counts Five through Eight of the Third-Party Complaint
Failure to Oppose
In any event, the Ghent Defendants have failed to oppose the Motion to
As the Local Rules provides, “Failure to submit a memorandum in
opposition to a motion may be deemed sufficient cause to grant the motion, except
where the pleadings provide sufficient grounds to deny the motion.” D. Conn. L.
Case 3:20-cv-01919-VLB Document 154 Filed 01/18/23 Page 15 of 15
to Dismiss, the motion is GRANTED.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Third-Party Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss, (Dkts. 129& 148), and instructs the Clerk to terminate Zalman
Komar, Evergreen Funding Company of New York, David Sporn, and Four Star
Funding, Incorporated from this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Digitally signed by Vanessa L.
Date: 2023.01.18 15:09:12
Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: January 18, 2023
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?