ANTHONY CIOLLI v. HEIDE IRAVANI, et al., 625 F. Supp. 2d 276

Summary

After sexually explicit messages were posted about them, the two individuals hired the PR firm and eventually they retained attorneys to file suit in Connecticut against the administrator and others for the harassing comments. After the Connecticut suit was settled, the administrator filed the instant lawsuit. One individual and her lawyers moved to strike portions of the complaint that discussed the substance of three sets of settlement communications that occurred in the course of the Connecticut lawsuit. In granting the motion, the court found that these communications constituted settlement negotiations within Fed. R. Evid. 408 and that the administrator sought their admission to prove liability for negotiated claims, which was a prohibited use under Rule 408. The court denied the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pending jurisdictional discovery by the administrator. While the court declined to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim under the Dragonetti Act, 42...