United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING MOTION TO STAY [DKTS. 28 AND
31]
HON.
VANESSA L. BRYANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court are Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration
[Dkt. 28], requesting that the Court reconsider its Order
denying Defendant's Motion to Stay pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1595(b)(1) [Dkt. 19], and Defendant's Motion to
Stay in the Interest of Justice [Dkt. 31], requesting that
the Court stay this civil action until the state criminal
proceeding against Defendant concludes. For the following
reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 28] is GRANTED
and the Motion to Stay in the Interest of Justice [Dkt. 31]
is GRANTED.[1]
I.
Procedural History
This
civil action was filed in the Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, on March 23,
2018. [Dkt. No. 1 (Def.'s Notice of Removal) ¶ 4].
Plaintiff, William Nesbitt (“Nesbitt”), alleges,
inter alia, that Defendant Bruce Bemer
(“Bemer”), violated the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act (“TVPA”), actionable pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1595(a). Id. Bemer removed the
state action to the District of Connecticut on the grounds
that the plaintiff's TVPA claim “aris[es] under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c)(1); [Dkt. 1 (Notice of
Removal)]. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1367(a).
A.
Civil Proceeding
Nesbitt
alleges in his complaint that beginning on or about March,
2010, until about November, 2014, Nesbitt was in a
relationship with Bemer in which Bemer would pay Nesbitt to
“engage in lewd and perverted acts, sexual and
otherwise, and would also ask Nesbitt to attempt to recruit
other young men to do likewise.” [Dkt. 1, ¶ 3].
Nesbitt's complaint contains five claims against Bemer:
(1) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
(“CUTPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a; (2)
violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
(“TVPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a); (3) assault
and battery; (4) reckless and wanton conduct; and (5)
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
B.
Criminal Proceeding
On
March 28, 2017, Bemer was arrested and charged with
patronizing a prostitute who is a minor or the victim of
trafficking, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §
53a-83(c), and conspiracy to commit trafficking, in violation
of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-192a. [Dkt. 28 (Def.'s
Mot. for Reconsideration), at 2].
In
Bemer's first Motion to Stay, he argued without asserting
any particularized facts supporting this claim that Nesbitt
is a victim of the occurrence which gave rise to the criminal
action against Bemer and, therefore, a stay of the civil
action is mandatory under the TVPA. [Dkt. 19 (Def.'s
Memorandum of Law in Support of Mot. To Stay), at 2].
Specifically, Bemer argued only that:
This civil action undoubtedly arises from the same occurrence
for which the Defendant is currently being prosecuted. As
noted above, the Defendant is being prosecuted by the State
of Connecticut for patronizing trafficked individuals and
conspiring to commit trafficking. The arrest warrant for the
Defendant cites to at least fifteen victims of the alleged
criminal enterprise. Based upon the Plaintiff's civil
complaint, he alleges to be a victim of the same trafficking
enterprise for which the Defendant is currently being
prosecuted. Accordingly, the evidence the Plaintiff will seek
to prove his case in this civil action is the same evidence
which the State will use in seeking to convict the Defendant.
[Id., at 2]. Bemer did not allege Nesbitt was named
as a victim or otherwise mentioned in the criminal
indictment, arrest warrant or in any discovery produced in
the criminal case. Bemer did not attach any documentation to
support his factual conclusion. He also did not offer offer
any reasoned analysis from which the court could determine
whether the cases arose out of the same facts and were thus
parallel proceedings.
In
opposition to the Motion to Stay, Nesbitt argued the
information filed in the state criminal action alleges that
Bemer solicited approximately four victims. [Dkt. 24-1
(Pl.'s Obj. to Def.'s Mot. To Stay, Memorandum in
Support), Ex. B, ¶ 31]. All four victims were involved
in an alleged human trafficking ring, in which Bemer is
charged with conspiring. [Id., ¶ 6]. Nesbitt
further alleges that he had a separate relationship with
Bemer in which Bemer paid Nesbitt for sexual encounters and
asked Nesbitt to solicit other individuals for Bemer.
[Id., ¶ 3]. Nesbitt swore he did not know the
individuals named in the trial information concerning the
state-alleged ring. [Dkt. 24, at 22-3].
In
support of his opposition to the original motion to stay
Nesbitt also filed an affidavit stating that he had reviewed
the criminal information and arrest warrant filed against
Bemer and was not a victim of the occurrence giving rise to
the criminal prosecution. [Dkt. 24-1, Ex. C., at 1-2]. In
essence, Nesbitt asserted that he had a private intimate
relationship with Bemer separate and distinct from the
relationships Bemer is alleged to have had with the alleged
victims in the state indictment. Bemer did not file a reply
asserting any facts tending to show the instant case and the
state criminal case were parallel proceedings, other than
noting the similarity of the charged conduct. [Dkt. 19]
The
Court denied the first Motion to Stay, holding that Bemer did
not prove that the cases were parallel,
“‘aris[ing] out of the same
occurrences'” underlying the state criminal case.
[Dkt. 26] (citing 18 U.S.C. 1595(b)(1)). Subsequently, Bemer
filed this Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 28] and Motion to
Stay in the Interest of Justice [Dkt. 31]. He submits that
“the Court was deprived of a full record upon which to
render its decision because of Plaintiff's one-sided
affidavit and ...