Michael Hill (Associate-Stamford, CT) and Stephen Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) prevailed in a case involving alleged negligence toward the Plaintiff’s son at a popular daycare facility in Norwalk, CT. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant negligently supervised its employees during the months of June and July 2024, causing injuries and damages, such as rashes, to his son. These rashes, in Plaintiff’s own words, resembled those of bed bug bites. Plaintiff thus alleged that the caregivers inadequately cared for and supervised his son and were the sole cause of his and his son’s alleged damages. It was also alleged that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s son both suffered from emotional distress because of this incident and that the Plaintiff personally suffered from financial hardship, such as lost wages and impairment of earning capacity.

The initial demand was $4M, and even when the demand became more realistic, Michael and Stephen refused to settle as they recognized that Plaintiff's case was weak. They engaged in only limited negotiations, focusing instead on moving for summary judgment as it grew abundantly clear the Plaintiff could not prove his allegations. The motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety a week before trial.

Eric Niederer (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Casey Miller (Associate-Stamford, CT) secured a dismissal of a lawsuit filed against an insurance carrier. The Connecticut Superior Court granted the firm's motion to dismiss in its entirety.

The underlying action arose from a plaintiff's claim for underinsured motorist benefits following a 2022 motor vehicle accident in New Haven, Connecticut. Through diligent investigation, the Eric and Casey determined that the plaintiff had sued the wrong entity: the client's records contained no policy issued to the plaintiff, and the police report from the underlying accident identified a separate, similarly named company as the plaintiff's actual insurer.

Based on these findings, the firm moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because no contractual relationship existed between the parties, and that process was insufficient because it named the wrong defendant. The court agreed on both points and granted the motion to dismiss in full.

​Stephen Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Irena Maier (Associate-Stamford, CT) secured a defense victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, obtaining the dismissal of a complaint with prejudice in favor of Wilson Elser’s client, a Connecticut Attorney. In this action, the plaintiff alleged that our client, who represented the plaintiff’s adversary in an underlying matter, violated the plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and engaged in conspiracy, racketeering, legal malpractice, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Steve and Irena filed a motion to dismiss on all counts. They argued that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) with respect to the conspiracy, racketeering and civil rights violation claims, and that the legal malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were barred by Connecticut's litigation privilege doctrine, and therefore should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Steve and Irena also filed additional moving papers challenging the plaintiff’s counterarguments. The court agreed with Wilson Elser’s arguments and granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Through persistent and strategic motion practice, Eric Niederer (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Casey Miller (Associate-Stamford, CT) obtained a complete and final resolution in a matter before the U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut. 

Plaintiff alleged sex, race, color, and disability discrimination against our insured, a nonprofit domestic violence services organization, and other defendants.
 
Over the course of the litigation, Plaintiff engaged in a pattern of noncompliance with the Court's orders and the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court further found that the plaintiff's noncompliance had been both prolonged and willful, extending back to the July 2025 court-ordered deadlines, and that Plaintiff had actively refused to comply with her discovery obligations to any extent.

The dismissal with prejudice eliminated the burden of prolonged and meritless litigation and barred Plaintiff from reasserting these claims in any future proceeding.

Michael A. Hill (Associate-Stamford, CT) and Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) obtained summary judgment in Bridgeport Superior Court, Connecticut, for an engineering firm client. In 2021, the plaintiff was injured when a trench allegedly collapsed while he was performing excavation and water main installation work at a property. The plaintiff named our client in the lawsuit, but preliminary discussions revealed the engineering firm was not associated with the property at the time of the incident. After confirming this with the client, Michael contacted the plaintiff’s counsel to determine the basis for naming the client as a defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel advised that the codefendant’s counsel provided our client’s name. After conducting limited discovery with the parties to establish the client’s lack of involvement, Michael and Steve moved for summary judgment on that basis. Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that he had no basis to oppose the motion and allowed it to enter on the record without objection. After Michael argued the motion, the presiding judge concurred with Wilson Elser’s arguments, granting summary judgment absent the plaintiff’s objection. The plaintiff informed counsel he would not object.

Stephen Brown (Partner-Stamford) and Irena Maier (Associate-Stamford) secured summary judgment in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Hartford Judicial District, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a Connecticut attorney. In this legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty action, the plaintiff claimed that our client, who represented the plaintiff in an underlying product liability matter, failed to file a timely objection to a summary judgment motion, resulting in the dismissal of the case. Irena and Steve moved for summary judgment on both counts, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish that he would have prevailed in the underlying action – an essential element of the plaintiff’s claims. In support of their motion, the Stamford team relied on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in the present case and the expert disclosures from the underlying matter, and submitted additional moving papers addressing the plaintiff’s counterarguments. The Court agreed with Steve and Irena’s arguments, finding that the record was devoid of evidence supporting a rational inference that the plaintiff would have succeeded in the underlying case, and granted the motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Michael A. Hill (Associate-Stamford, CT) obtained dismissal in Danbury Superior Court, Connecticut, for a nonprofit youth baseball league client, based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing. The plaintiff, an unincorporated association formed solely for the purpose of this lawsuit, filed suit against our client, its local league affiliate, and 23 individual board members. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged negligence, fraud, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Recognizing that the parties’ defenses were aligned, Michael coordinated with the codefendant’s counsel to research dismissal of the matter based on jurisdictional grounds. After meticulous review of case law and drafts, Wilson Elser and the codefendant’s counsel filed motions to dismiss. During oral argument, Michael further articulated the firm’s position on the plaintiff’s standing, including its attempt to assert claims on behalf of a proposed class. The court agreed with the arguments, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this action and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of our client and all other defendants.

Eric Niederer (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Casey Miller (Associate, Stamford, CT) prevailed on a motion to compel arbitration in Danbury Superior Court, Danbury, Connecticut, for Wilson Elser’s multinational technology company client. The plaintiff alleged he was injured in a two-vehicle collision involving a co-defendant driver and claimed our client was vicariously liable for the driver’s alleged negligence. The plaintiff maintained that the driver was our client's employee because he was using the client's app and transporting a passenger acquired through the company’s platform at the time of the accident.

Once litigation began, Eric and Casey filed a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to our client's Terms of Service. After oral argument, the court required additional briefing from Wilson Elser on other motions to compel filed on our client’s behalf in the state, as well as arbitration agreements and clickwrap agreements. Following that briefing, the court granted the motion, the judge relying on caselaw cited in Eric and Casey’s motion and the applicable agreement between our client and the plaintiff.

Eric Niederer (Partner-Stamford, CT) and Casey Miller (Associate, Stamford, CT) succeeded on a motion to compel arbitration in Stamford Superior Court, Stamford, Connecticut, for Wilson Elser’s multinational technology company client. The plaintiff alleged he was injured in a two-vehicle collision involving a codefendant driver and claimed that our client was vicariously liable for the driver’s alleged negligence. The plaintiff maintained that the driver was our client's employee because he was using the client's app and transporting a passenger obtained through the company’s platform at the time of the accident.

Once litigation began, Eric and Casey filed a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to our client's Terms of Service. After oral argument, the court requested the plaintiff’s deposition transcript before issuing a ruling. The court granted the motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, relying on the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in ruling in favor of our client.