Hartford legal fees in ballpark lawsuit climb to nearly $6M. Could there be an end to the standoff?

HARTFORD — As the city’s legal costs climb, both sides in the long-running lawsuit over the development of Dunkin’ Park and the land around it appear dug in the for the long haul and a costly court battle that could stretch out for years.

But an attorney for Centerplan and DoNo Hartford — the developers fired from the stadium project and the mixed-use development around it — suggests there could be could be an opening to end a dispute over claims the developers were wrongly terminated by the city.

“Centerplan and DoNo are prepared to fight to the end to correct the wrongs they have suffered,” Louis R. Pepe, a partner in the law firm McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter in Hartford, said. “But we all know that litigation is seldom the best way to resolve disputes like this. Centerplan and DoNo are open to any reasonable proposal to end the current standoff or to engage in mediation for that purpose.

“Unfortunately, the city has made it clear it will not sit down with Centerplan and DoNo, and so there can be little doubt who must bear the responsibility for the freeze on the parcels in question.”

While the 6,100-seat minor league ballpark was completed in 2017, the future of the development around the stadium is stalled amid a court case that has been running for years. Just one phase of an envisioned $200 million or more redevelopment of mostly parking lots could include 1,000 apartments, parking garages, restaurants and entertainment venues which would be completed by a subsequent developer.

According to information provided by the city, Hartford’s legal fees in defending the lawsuit over the termination are now nearly $6 million.

City Corporation Counsel Howard Rifkin responded to Pepe in a statement that disputed the claim that the city was not open to talks to resolve the litigation.

“The city is confident that at the end of the day, we will prevail again in a jury trial, as we did the first time,” Rifkin said. “We can agree with Attorney Pepe that litigation is seldom the best way to resolve disputes like this, and we take very seriously our fundamental obligation to protect taxpayers. The city has never closed the door on discussions to resolve this litigation, and we are certainly open to reasonable resolutions — but I’d put a lot of emphasis on the word reasonable.”

Legal Skirmishing

The long-running legal battle between the city and the former developers stretches back more than seven years.

The developer filed a civil lawsuit claiming they were wrongly terminated by the city from the ballpark construction project in 2016; and then, a year later, the development around the stadium.

In 2019, a Superior Court jury sided with the city’s decision to terminate the developers. But last year, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the critical question of who had legal control over the stadium and its design was ambiguous. The developers have argued that it was the city, that the designs were flawed, resulting in cost overruns and delays in the ballpark’s construction.

With a new trial ordered, Centerplan and DoNo Hartford last year also moved to essentially take back control of the development around Dunkin’ Park.

After its 2019 court victory in the wrongful termination lawsuit, the city chose a new developer, RMS Cos. of Stamford, to take over the redevelopment. The first phase of 270 apartments has been completed, but litigation over who has the right to develop has prevented RMS from breaking ground on the second of four planned phases.

RMS founder and chief executive Randy Salvatore has said he remains committed to the redevelopment.

The barrier to further development strengthened in May when a Superior Court judge ruled that who had the right to develop needed to come after the new trial and a decision on the wrongful termination issue. The new trial is scheduled for April of next year.

Legal skirmishing continues in court, as the city seeks to push forward on development around Dunkin’ Park.

In filed motions, the city is essentially arguing — among other things — that attempts by the former developers to stop the city from continuing to develop the parcels around the ballpark are illegal because those restrictions were lifted by the courts after the first trial. The restrictions can’t be reinstated because the second trial is part of the same legal action and not a new one.

The developers, in their court filings, push back on that contention. They argue they have the right to reclaim — in fact, never lost — the right to develop the land around the ballpark.

Neither Pepe nor Rifkin would comment on the pending motions.

But in May, when the courts ruled a decision on who gets to redevelop will wait until after the second trial, Pepe said: “When we learned back in 2019 that the city had retained another developer, we put the city on notice that DoNo Hartford was appealing the trial court’s decision. Not withstanding that warning, the city will have to deal with consequences of that decision.”

Pepe also said his client had successfully competed for the development rights for the parcels around the park.

“And they are just as willing, ready and able to develop them today as they were then,” Pepe said.

‘No doubt in my mind’

Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin said recently he stood by his decision to fire Centerplan and DoNo Hartford. The developers had been hired by his predecessor, Pedro E. Segarra.

“Over the last eight years, I’ve had to make many hard decisions, many of which I wrestled with and some of which I second guessed,” said Bronin, who is not running for reelection in November. “This was not one of them. There is no doubt in my mind that if we hadn’t made the decision that we made in 2016, we would not have a baseball park even today.

“Instead of an award-winning, nationally recognized baseball park, we’d still have an unfinished hulk of concrete and steel,” Bronin said.

Bronin said the legal fees to defend the lawsuit are dwarfed by the tens of millions the former developers’ insurer paid to take over and hire a new contractor to complete Dunkin’ Park after the termination. The ballpark opened in 2017, a year late.

Even so, if the verdict in a second trial goes against the city, any damages awarded would not be covered by a city insurance policy.

The city is not required to go out to bid for outside legal services, but some say the city likely could have better held down the costs of defending the ballpark lawsuit if it had.

“Each law firm could have sent in a proposal with different rates, and there should have been a process by which they would have come before the mayor and corporation counsel to plead their case,” Bruce Rubenstein, chairman of the city’s internal audit commission, said. “There could have been substantial savings to the people of the city.”

The city has been represented by Murtha,Cullina and Carlton Fields, which both have offices in Hartford.

Pepe said he could not comment on how much Centerplan and DoNo had paid in legal fees to pursue the litigation.

A final judgment from U.S. District Court in 2019 awarded Centerplan’s insurer, Arch Insurance, $33 million related to the construction and completion of Dunkin’ Park. Arch’s suit alleged Centerplan had failed to reimburse the company for the claim it paid out.

Kenneth R. Gosselin can be reached at kgosselin@courant.com.