Bruce Bemer’s  “heinous” Conduct results in 3.5 million dollar attachment order

judge signing on the papers


The following order is entered in the above matter:


“The hearing in probable cause of the issuance of a prejudgment remedy is not contemplated to be a full
scale trial on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff does not have to establish that he will
prevail, only that there is probable cause to sustain the validity of the claim … The court’s role in such a
hearing is to determine probable success by weighing probabilities.” Canty v. Otto, 304 Conn. 546,565,
41 A.3d 280 (2012). Moreover, this weighing process applies to both the legal and factual issues… It is
the trial court that must determine, in light of its assessment of the legal issues and the credibility of the
witnesses, whether the plaintiff has sustained the burden of showing probable cause to sustain the
validity of its claim…” Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman, Inc. v El Constructors, Inc. 32 Conn App., 118,126,
628 A.2d 601(1993). The court is vested with broad discretion when making its determination of
probable cause. Canty v. Otto, supra, 304 Conn. 565.

“Proof of probable cause as a condition of obtaining a prejudgment remedy is not as demanding as proof
by a fair preponderance of the evidence.” Ledgebrook Condominium Assn., Inc. v. Lusk Corp., 172
Conn. 577, 584, 376 A.2d 60 (1977). “Probable cause is a flexible common sense standard. It does not
demand that a belief be correct or more likely true than false.” New England Land Co., Ltd. v.
DeMarkey, 213 Conn. 612, 620, 569 A.2d 1098 (1990).

“Section 52-278d(a) explicitly requires that a trial court’s determination of probable cause in granting a
prejudgment remedy include the court’s ‘taking into account any defenses, counterclaims or [setoffs] …’”
(Emphasis omitted.) TES Franchising, LLC v. Feldman, 286 Conn. 132, 141, 943 A.2d 406 (2008).
Since a prejudgment remedy hearing is not contemplated to be a full scale trial on the merits, the
evidence presented at such a hearing will not be as well developed as it would be at trial. State v. Bacon
Construction Co., 300 Conn. 471, 484, 15 A.3d 147 (2011) (quoting TES Franchising, supra, 286 Conn.

The court, having considered all the evidence including the testimony of witnesses and full exhibits,
finds that probable cause exists to sustain the validity of the plaintiff’s claims, and further, that the
plaintiff will prevail on all three counts of the operative complaint. The court found the testimony of the
witnesses called by the plaintiff to be believable, and found particularly compelling the testimony of the
plaintiff, an extremely credible witness. The court finds that the heinous nature of the defendant’s
misconduct had a devastating impact on the life of the plaintiff, who sustained substantial injuries,
including severe emotional distress, emotional struggles including but not limited to anger and
relationship issues, and alcohol abuse, all as a result of the defendant’s misconduct. The court further
finds that the plaintiff, who had been an honor student prior to the defendant’s exploitation and abuse of
the plaintiff, was unable to continue his education, suffered a loss of life enjoyment, and sustained a loss
of earning capacity as a result of the misconduct.Accordingly, in light of the reprehensible misconduct
of the defendant and the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages, there is probable cause to
sustain the validity of the plaintiff’s claims. As such, in order to secure the judgment, the application for
UWYCV195030819S 12/16/2022 Page 1 of 2 a pre-judgment remedy is granted, in the amount of $3,500,000.00.