Business Litigation

• Jury returned verdict in favor of Ms. Rossi’s client, the defendant in a breach of contract litigation after just 35 minutes of deliberation. Before trial and after discovery, Ms. Rossi successfully convinced counsel for Plaintiff to withdraw three out of four counts of its Complaint against her client, owner of commercial property in Hartford. The remaining count, involving claims for commissions allegedly due the Plaintiff under an exclusive right to sell listing agreement, was tried to a jury in Rockville Superior Court and the result was a jury verdict in Ms. Rossi’s client’s favor. In addition, the Court awarded costs permissible in Connecticut to Ms. Rossi’s client.
• Ms. Rossi successfully defended numerous arbitration matters filed against a financial institution in a variety of locales throughout the country and involving claims of violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The claims all involved the closures of certain credit card accounts. Some of the claims also involved denials of later credit applications after the consumers’ credit card accounts were closed. To date, Ms. Rossi obtained seven separate arbitration Awards in her client’s favor on these claims. Ms. Rossi also successfully defended an appeal of one of the Awards. Another Award not only found in favor of Ms. Rossi’s client but also awarded her client its arbitration fees incurred because the Arbitrator determined that the claim was filed for purposes of harassment. Two other Awards obtained by Ms. Rossi were confirmed – one in Connecticut and the other in Maine.
• Obtained summary judgment in favor of a financial institution in a lawsuit filed in the Bridgeport Superior Court. The causes of action asserted included violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act (CUTPA). The claims asserted involved alleged unauthorized and/or fraudulent use of an individual credit card account issued to the owner and managing partner of a Connecticut business by the business’ bookkeeper. Plaintiff sought to recover the total amount of the alleged unauthorized and/or fraudulent transactions under the financial institution’s $0 fraud protection. However, the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) defines unauthorized use as the use of a credit card by a person other than the cardholder who does not have actual, implied, or apparent authority for such use. Because the bookkeeper was cloaked with apparent authority, coupled with Plaintiff’s failure to examine monthly billing statements for the credit card, failure to supervise the bookkeeper, and failure to conduct an adequate background check on the bookkeeper, Plaintiff’s claims failed. Summary judgment not only was entered in Ms. Rossi’s client’s favor on Plaintiff’s claims against it, but summary judgment also was entered in her client’s favor on its Counterclaim. The matter was settled before the hearing in damages on the Counterclaim.
• Following four days of virtual evidentiary hearings, testimony from four witnesses, the introduction into evidence of numerous exhibits, and post-hearing briefing in an arbitration matter filed on behalf of a consumer against her client, a financial institution, Ms. Rossi obtained an Award in her client’s favor on all claims asserted. The Claimant was represented by two lawyers from Boston, one of whom was a professor at Harvard Law School and the other an adjunct professor at Boston College Law School. The causes of action asserted included violations of the TILA, the TILA’s state-law counterpart, and violation of Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, Chapter 93A. The claims asserted involved alleged unauthorized and/or fraudulent use of a credit card account over approximately two years. The Claimant sought reimbursement or charge-back of the amounts that Claimant paid on the credit card account towards the alleged unauthorized transactions. Ms. Rossi argued that this type of claim is not permitted under the TILA, that the statute of limitations under the TILA barred the claims, and that the Claimant’s negligent conduct furthered the alleged fraud and/or unauthorized use. The evidence presented by Ms. Rossi demonstrated that Claimant logged into the credit card account online over 100 times during the relevant timeframe, enabling Claimant to view the transactions on the account; that Claimant made a litany of payments, often several times per month, towards the balance on the account; and that Claimant responded to texted fraud alerts and telephone calls made to Claimant confirming the transactions.
• In response to multiple arbitration matters filed by a non-lawyer on behalf of several different consumers against a financial institution, Ms. Rossi not only successfully defended all matters, but in one of the matters, Ms. Rossi succeeded in getting the non-lawyer removed from the proceedings altogether due to the non-lawyer’s incompetence and the resulting consumer harm the non-lawyer caused to Ms. Rossi’s clients’ customers. One of the arbitration Awards obtained by Ms. Rossi included not only an Award in her client’s favor on Claimant’s claims against it, but also included an Award of arbitration fees paid by her client because the Arbitrator found the claim was filed for purposes of harassment or was otherwise frivolous. That Award subsequently was confirmed in New York. It is important to note that unauthorized practice of law rules differ in each state and that the representation of a party by a non-lawyer in arbitration does not necessarily amount to the unauthorized practice of law in some states.
• In the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Ms. Rossi presented appellate argument before the Justices on the issue of appealability of a small claims decision. Ms. Rossi argued that a Plaintiff in small claims in Massachusetts cannot appeal an unfavorable decision as to Plaintiff’s claims against a Defendant. The Justices agreed with Ms. Rossi, and the decision by the small claims magistrate in favor of Ms. Rossi’s client was upheld.
• Ms. Rossi defended directors of company in complex commercial litigation pending in Hartford Superior Court, involving a variety of shareholder derivative claims and multi-million dollars in damages at stake. The claims alleged included breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and civil theft, imposition of constructive trust, appointment of corporate receiver, and violation of the CUTPA. On behalf of the company’s directors, Ms. Rossi successfully negotiated the claims, which included the drafting of complicated releases and covenants not to compete. During the course of the litigation, Ms. Rossi successfully moved to strike the breach of fiduciary duty and imposition of constructive trust claims as to three of the four Plaintiffs. Ms. Rossi further obtained dismissal of all derivative and CUTPA claims because, as beneficiaries of a trust that owns shares in the company, Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue a shareholder’s derivative suit since they were not shareholders as a matter of law under the Connecticut Business Corporations Act.
• Ms. Rossi successfully convinced Plaintiff’s counsel to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the Civil Court of the City of New York, County of New York, against a foreign entity, a holding company based in the United Kingdom. Ms. Rossi argued that the holding company had no physical presence within the United States, no registered agent for service of process within the United States, and that any service of the Complaint upon the holding company needed to comply with all foreign entity service requirements under New York Rules of Practice, which had not been done. Ms. Rossi further argued that New York courts had no jurisdiction or venue over the lawsuit generally.
• Ms. Rossi obtained a favorable decision on behalf of her client, a national student loan lender, following extensive briefing and oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment wherein Ms. Rossi raised issues of preemption as a defense to Plaintiff’s CUTPA and misrepresentation claims against her client. The Stamford Superior Court agreed with Ms. Rossi that the Higher Education Act preempted these claims.
• Negotiated resolution of a lawsuit filed in Connecticut against her clients, a major airline and the airline’s President and Chairman. The claims asserted were misrepresentation and intent to defraud. Plaintiff claimed that the contract was entered into on the basis of misleading statements. Ms. Rossi, on behalf of her clients, was able to negotiate resolution of the claims asserted, while leaving the contract intact.
• On behalf of a Massachusetts business, Ms. Rossi successfully negotiated settlement of its claim against large Connecticut insurer involving the insurer’s failure to pay storage fees to the business for storage of heavy equipment owned by the insurer for a period in excess of 19 months.
• On behalf of a Connecticut small business, Ms. Rossi successfully negotiated settlement of breach of contract claim against the business by a large national dealer of product, involving a business account and certain inventory, and where issues of enforceability and ambiguity in the contract were asserted, and violations of CUTPA claimed.
• Following a three-day bench trial at Hartford Superior Court involving claims of breach of contract and violations of the CUTPA against a Connecticut small business owner, Ms. Rossi obtained judgment in favor of the business owner on Plaintiff’s CUTPA claim. The CUTPA claim alleged various misrepresentations and alleged wrongful withholding of money. The Court found in favor of the business owner on the CUTPA claim. As the prevailing party on the CUTPA claim, Ms. Rossi succeeded in obtaining an award of costs in favor of her client.
• Ms. Rossi successfully shielded her client, a financial institution, from a $1 Million claim raised against it by a business seeking to recover those monies. The claims raised by the business resulted from its former employee’s use of the employee’s own, and several other business employees’, company credit cards to obtain cash advances and make purchases over a seven-year timeframe. The former employee was placed in a position of trust by the business. When the business ultimately discovered its employee’s actions, the employee was terminated by the business. The business then sought to recover its losses from three financial institutions, which losses amounted in total to nearly $3 Million. On behalf of her client, and in defense of the $1 Million Dollar claim asserted against it, Ms. Rossi argued, among other things, that the business placed this employee in a position of authority, paid company credit card bills for several years without protest, and failed to properly supervise its employee and review credit card statements documenting the charges. In addition, Ms. Rossi argued well-established caselaw under the TILA, recognized throughout several circuit courts addressing such issues, irrespective of whether such claims are expressed as unauthorized use or fraud. Any such claims also were time-barred due to the statute of limitations under the TILA.
• In response to a lawsuit filed in state court by a consumer against Ms. Rossi’s client, a financial institution, and seeking $800,000.00 in damages, alleging claims of negligence, gross negligence, fraud, and trespass, the matter was removed to federal court and a motion to compel arbitration was filed, which was granted. Following extensive briefing and an evidentiary hearing, as well as defending against further claims asserted by the consumer in arbitration — violations of various federal statutes and a state criminal code, Ms. Rossi prevailed on behalf of her client. The Award not only found in favor of Ms. Rossi’s client on the claims against it, but also provided a monetary award to her client. While the consumer sought to set aside the Award with the federal court, the court denied the consumer’s motion.
• In response to a Complaint filed in Supreme Court in the State of New York against her client, a financial institution, and another, Ms. Rossi removed the case to federal court in the Western District of New York. The Complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, violations of New York General Business Laws, and other federal statutory violations. Following several months of negotiations, led by Ms. Rossi on behalf of all Defendants, all of Plaintiff’s claims were resolved and dismissed by Plaintiff.
• Negotiated resolution of a lawsuit brought against her client, a financial institution, involving allegations against her client for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud. While the lawsuit initially was filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Ms. Rossi successfully removed the lawsuit to federal court in New York. Thereafter, Ms. Rossi prevailed on her Motion to Dismiss the fraud claim on the basis that the allegations asserted by Plaintiff in her Complaint did not meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud under Federal Rule 9(b) and New York and Second Circuit case law. Ms. Rossi later negotiated resolution of all remaining claims against her client.
• Following extensive briefing and an evidentiary hearing, Ms. Rossi prevailed on behalf of her client, a financial institution, in arbitration proceedings involving claims of negligence, gross negligence, fraud, trespass, violations of various federal statutes, and a state criminal code. The Award not only found in favor of Ms. Rossi’s client on the Claimant’s claims against it, but also provided a monetary award to her client.
• Plaintiff dismissed lawsuit against Ms. Rossi’s client, a financial institution pending in federal court in the Southern District of Illinois. The lawsuit was brought against Ms. Rossi’s client, its board members, CEO, and the FBI, alleging violations of the TILA and RICO, libel, slander, and fraud. Ms. Rossi, with the assistance of local counsel, moved to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds of res judicata and lack of jurisdiction. Sua sponte, the Court ordered that Plaintiff properly serve all Defendants within thirty days, but cautioned Plaintiff that the Court likely lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. Within ten days after the Court’s Order, Plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit.
• With the assistance of local counsel, Ms. Rossi succeeded in obtaining Judgment in favor of her client, a financial institution, in a lawsuit pending against it in Superior Court in Indiana. The lawsuit involved claims of a defective product purchased by the Plaintiff, and alleged failure to investigate the consumer’s dispute involving that purchase before the time that the warranty on the product expired. After evidence, the Court held that the Plaintiff take nothing on its claims.
• After nearly a year of defending a financial institution in litigation pending in federal court in the Northern District of New York, and on the eve of Ms. Rossi’s Summary Judgment Motion being heard, the plaintiff dismissed all of his claims with prejudice against the bank. The lawsuit included allegations of violations of the TILA and the FCBA, deceptive acts and practices, claims of an ancillary action, and claims that a consumer class existed.
• Following trial in Massachusetts, Court issued Judgment in favor of Defendant, Ms. Rossi’s client, a financial institution. Issues at trial involved claims of false imprisonment, unauthorized use, duress, and violations of the FCBA. At trial, Ms. Rossi presented evidence via cross-examination of Plaintiff, direct examination of a representative from her client, and other documentary evidence, demonstrating inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s testimony and that Plaintiff ratified and affirmed the contract. During closing argument, Ms. Rossi tied the evidence into the well-established Massachusetts law to show, among other things, that duress could not be asserted because her client did not cause the duress, that the Plaintiff had ratified and affirmed the contract anyway, and that the bank fully complied with its obligations under the FCBA. In a rather swift ruling, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Ms. Rossi’s client the day after closing arguments.
• In federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, and with the assistance of local counsel, Ms. Rossi took the lead in arguing preliminary procedural issues on behalf of her client, a financial institution, and 18 other businesses named as Defendants. The procedural issues involved misjoinder of all 19 defendants in one lawsuit, including her client. Ms. Rossi’s Motion to Dismiss or Drop Certain Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21 was granted by the Court. Thereafter, the Plaintiff’s case against Ms. Rossi’s client, separately created as the result of the granting of the Motion, was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
• Succeeded in obtaining an Award in favor of her client, a financial institution, following an arbitration in Portland, Maine wherein testimony from four witnesses and documentary evidence was presented. The claims included various violations of Maine statutes designed to protect consumers, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Not only was Ms. Rossi successful in defending the claims asserted, but she also was successful in obtaining an Award in the total amount of her client’s counterclaim.
• Succeeded in obtaining an Award in favor of her client, a financial institution, following an arbitration before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal in Atlanta, Georgia. Not only was Ms. Rossi successful in defending the claims asserted, including breach of contract, violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), declaratory relief, and equitable accounting, but she also was successful in obtaining an Award against the Claimants in the total amount of her client’s counterclaim.
• Convinced counsel for consumer to dismiss all claims with prejudice against financial institution in litigation filed in Iowa because the claims lacked factual and legal merit. The claims involved various violations of the Iowa Code designed to protect consumers.
• Federal court in Maryland agreed with Ms. Rossi, that consumer’s claims against her client, a financial institution, involving violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the FCRA should be dismissed as a matter of law. While each of the other two Defendants named in the lawsuit chose to settle with the Plaintiff, Ms. Rossi and her client chose to defend the claims and did so successfully.
• Following two separate arbitrations before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal in Atlanta, Georgia, Ms. Rossi obtained Awards in both matters in favor of financial institution involving breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, accounting, declaratory relief, and violations of the FCBA, FCRA, and FDCPA. The Arbitrators in these two separate matters agreed with Ms. Rossi that the Claimants failed to present evidence sufficient to prove their claims.
• Following arbitration before the Commercial Arbitration Tribunal in San Francisco, California, Ms. Rossi obtained an Award in favor of financial institution involving breach of contract, willfulness, attorney fees and costs, violations of various California Civil Codes involving credit transactions, the FCBA, and the FCRA. The Arbitrator agreed with Ms. Rossi that the Claimant was not harmed, is able to obtain credit, and had not met its burden of proof.
• Defended and successfully resolved high stakes claims against a financial institution and a large Connecticut financial services company involving breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and negligence.
• Along with local counsel, Ms. Rossi defended a lawsuit brought against two financial institutions in Texas. As against Ms. Rossi’s client, Plaintiffs alleged violations of certain federal statutes, including the TILA. A Motion to Dismiss was filed and granted by the Court, but without prejudice for Plaintiff to file an amended pleading. Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint. In response to the Amended Complaint, a second Motion to Dismiss was filed. The Court again granted the dismissal, this time with prejudice, as to all claims asserted by Plaintiffs as any further amendment would be futile.