Case Activity (325)

1. Order | Filed: August 06, 2026 | Entered: August 06, 2026 Rolleri & Sheppard CPAS, LLP et al v. Knight et al

   Other Statutory Actions | Connecticut

   Order on Motion to Dismiss

   ORDER granting 216 Motion to Dismiss. By Omnibus Order dated August 19, 2025, the Court (Williams, J.) dismissed Counts One and Four of Defendants' counterclaim with prejudice. ECF No. 196 , at 3-4. The Court dismissed the remainder of the counterclaims without prejudice and permitted Defendants to amend their counterclaim to "allege facts showing that supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate." Id. at 6. The Court determined that Defendants had failed to allege that the counterclaims "arise from a common nucleus of operative facts" such that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims was appropriate. The Court observed that the claims in Plaintiff's ERISA complaint and Defendants' counterclaims "appear to be two separate and distinct courses of allegedly unlawful conduct," and that "[t]he prosecution of one may be done completely divorced from the prosecution of the other, and each would involve a separate body of evidence and a separate set of laws." Id. Indeed, it appears that Defendant Michael Knight's counterclaims (and other related claims) are, in fact, being separately litigated by Defendant Michael Knight in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. See Knight v. Rolleri et al, Case No. FBT-CV-22-6119268-S, Compl.; Knight v. Rolleri et al, Case No. FBT-CV-25-6150399-S, Second Am. Compl., Entry No. 106.

   The Court has reviewed the original Counterclaim, as well as the Amended Counterclaim 214 , and has considered the parties' extensive briefing submitted on the instant motion. The Court first rejects any suggestion or argument that Defendants have pled any cause of action giving rise to federal question jurisdiction over the counterclaims. No such claims have been identified or plausibly alleged. As to supplemental jurisdiction, the Court does not write on a blank slate as Judge Williams has previously identified the deficiencies in the original Counterclaim as it relates to the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Although the Amended Counterclaims expand upon Defendants' allegations of wrongdoing by Plaintiffs as it relates to the aftermath of Mr. Knight's retirement from the partnership (including allegations stemming from conduct in this litigation), and makes repeated reference to the claims pled in the First Amended Complaint, the gravamen of the Amended Counterclaims remains wholly distinct and largely unrelated to the claims in the Complaint. For the reasons previously articulated by the Court, see ECF No. 196 , the 216 Motion to Dismiss the 214 Amended Counterclaim is GRANTED. The Amended Counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice but also without further leave to amend. Defendants may bring these claims in a Connecticut state court of competent jurisdiction.

   Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 8/6/2026. (AL)

2. Order | Filed: January 16, 2026 | Entered: January 16, 2026 Rolleri & Sheppard CPAS, LLP et al v. Knight et al

   Other Statutory Actions | Connecticut

   Order on Motion for Leave to File

   ORDER granting in part 228 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. No further briefing is permitted. To the extent the Motion itself contains arguments in response to the Plaintiffs' Reply, the motion will be considered. But briefing cannot continue ad nauseam. And the Court is satisfied that the parties' respective positions with respect to the issues raised are adequately presented. Counsel is reminded that a sur-reply is not a vehicle by which to simply have the last word.

   Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 1/16/2026. (Lacina, A)

3. 323 additional result(s)