HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) - Two men who accused a prominent Connecticut businessman of sexually abusing them when they were children can’t revive lawsuits they settled even though the defendant stopped making agreed-upon payments, an appeals court ruled.
The two sides accused each other of violating the 2019 settlement agreement and the trial judge refused to restore their case to the docket, ruling the plaintiffs would have to pursue a breach-of-contract suit instead. The plaintiffs appealed, but a three-judge panel of the Connecticut Appellate Court refused to overturn the trial judge’s order.
Plaintiffs identified as John and Bob Doe sued Bruce Bemer and another man in 2017, claiming they were victims of a abuse scheme in which the men recruited male prostitutes at drug-rehab centers and paid them for sex. Bemer, the owner of a Connecticut race track, was convicted of trafficking but his conviction was later overturned by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs settled their cases in 2019 under a confidentiality agreement that prohibited them from revealing the terms. The settlement also contained a four-month waiver of the statute of limitations under which they could reinstate their lawsuits if Bemer defaulted on his obligation to pay.
In April 2020, after Bemer failed to make his second payment, the plaintiffs asked the court to restore their lawsuit. Bemer said he refused to pay because Doe had violated the agreement by allowing his lawyers to publicize the settlement on their website and revealing financial details to his real estate lawyer.
Judges have discretion whether to restore a case to the docket, the appeals court said in an Oct. 4 decision, and the standard for finding an abuse of discretion is high. In this case, the court never found that Bemer had defaulted and the defense argued it was Doe who had violated the agreement first, nullifying the four-month waiver period.
“The court reasonably could have rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the waiver provisions applied, especially when each side was claiming a breach by the other and the court had been presented with conflicting evidence and arguments on that issue,” the appeals court concluded..