Pastore LCC Claims Jury Trial Was Wrongfully Denied

Pastore LLC represents a co-founder of an investment firm in challenging a $10.4 million judgment in Connecticut superior court, arguing that the trial court improperly denied his right to a jury trial. The dispute centers on whether both parties had provided mutual written consent to a jury trial before the court unilaterally removed the case from the jury docket in February 2023. The plaintiffs, who initially sought a jury trial, later withdrew their claim and secured a bench trial verdict in August 2023.

Pastore LLC argued to the Connecticut appellate court in February that the trial court’s decision was both legally unprecedented and prejudicial, as it deprived the defendant of due process. The firm contends that the plaintiffs leveraged the procedural misstep to avoid a jury trial, after previously failing to secure a favorable outcome in federal court on similar claims, a jury trial won by Pastore in 2019.

The appeal remains under review by the Connecticut Appellate Court

Connecticut’s Amended Data Privacy Law: What Health Clubs Need to Know

The Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA) has introduced new compliance requirements that impact fitness clubs, gyms, and wellness centers operating in the state. The law, which became effective on July 1, 2023, and was amended in October 2023, establishes strict consumer data protection rules, particularly for businesses that handle sensitive health information.

For health clubs, compliance is essential to avoid penalties and maintain consumer trust. Below, we outline the key changes, the types of health data affected, and the health clubs to which the law applies.

Applicability of the CTDPA to Fitness Clubs

The CTDPA applies to health clubs and wellness businesses that meet at least one of the following thresholds:

  1. The business processes the personal data of at least 100,000 Connecticut consumers annually, excluding data collected solely for payment transactions.
  2. The business processes the personal data of at least 25,000 Connecticut consumers and derives at least 25 percent of its gross revenue from selling consumer data.

Businesses covered under this law include large gym chains and boutique studios if they meet the data processing threshold. The CTDPA further applies to health and wellness centers that collect and store consumer health data, as well as digital fitness platforms and fitness applications operating in Connecticut.

The law does not apply to small, independent gyms that do not collect or process significant amounts of consumer data, personal trainers who do not store extensive client information, or medical fitness facilities governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), such as hospitals and physical therapy centers.

If a health club collects consumer health data, tracks workouts, or engages in data-driven marketing, it must determine whether it meets the CTDPA thresholds and take necessary compliance measures.

Types of Data Covered Under the CTDPA

The CTDPA applies to sensitive personal data collected by health clubs, including:

  • Biometric data, such as fingerprints, facial recognition scans, and retina scans used for identity verification and gym access.
  • Health and medical history, including pre-existing conditions, injuries, medications, and pregnancy status provided during membership enrollment or personal training assessments.
  • Fitness and performance data, including body composition analysis, workout history, heart rate monitoring, and cardiovascular assessments.
  • Nutritional information, including dietary preferences, meal plans, and supplement use recorded during nutrition counseling sessions.
  • Mental health and behavioral data, such as self-reported stress levels, sleep patterns, and wellness tracking.
  • Payment and insurance details, such as information collected for employer-sponsored wellness programs or health insurance reimbursement.
  • Location and movement data, including gym check-in records, geofencing data, and wearable device integrations.

Sensitive health data is subject to heightened security and privacy protections under the CTDPA. Health clubs must ensure that they collect and process this data in compliance with the law’s requirements.

Key Compliance Requirements for Fitness Clubs

  1. Obtain Explicit Consumer Consent
    Health clubs must obtain clear, informed consent before collecting or processing biometric data, health records, or fitness tracking information.
  2. Update Privacy Policies
    Businesses must implement a consumer-friendly privacy policy that explicitly outlines what health data is collected, how it is stored and used, and how consumers can request data deletion.
  3. Allow Consumers to Opt Out
    Beginning January 1, 2025, fitness clubs must comply with global opt-out signals from consumers who do not wish for their data to be used for advertising or data sales.
  4. Limit Data Collection
    Businesses should collect only the minimum amount of consumer health data necessary for their operations. The use of location-based fitness tracking must be limited and should require consumer consent.
  5. Conduct Data Protection Assessments
    Prior to engaging in targeted advertising, biometric tracking, or large-scale data processing, health clubs must conduct an internal privacy impact assessment to evaluate compliance with the law.
  6. Enhance Data Security Measures
    Health clubs must implement robust cybersecurity measures to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive health data, as well as data breaches and misuse.
  7. Establish Consumer Data Access and Deletion Procedures
    The CTDPA grants consumers the right to access, correct, and request deletion of their personal data. Fitness clubs must establish a process to respond to such requests within 45 days.

Conclusion

With Connecticut’s updated privacy laws in full effect, health clubs must review their data collection practices, update privacy policies, and ensure compliance to avoid legal penalties. Health clubs that process consumer health data must be particularly diligent in adhering to the law’s requirements, as enforcement actions from the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office have already begun.

Proactive compliance not only helps avoid regulatory fines but also strengthens consumer trust and business reputation. Health clubs should consult legal counsel or data privacy experts to assess their compliance obligations under the CTDPA.

Pastore LLC Challenges SEC in High-Stakes Second Circuit Appeal

Pastore LLC represents the  CEO of a technology company and the company before the Second Circuit in a high-stakes SEC enforcement appeal. The case challenges a Connecticut federal judge’s reliance on post-trial “new facts” to impose a $441,000 judgment, including disgorgement and civil penalties. Pastore, hired after Cozen O’Connor handled the trial, argued that the district court violated the defendant’s constitutional rights by issuing a permanent industry ban and securities law injunction without jury consideration.

The SEC admitted post-trial that it could not identify harmed investors but later produced a declaration claiming 2,967 traders lost $1.69 million—without linking those losses to the alleged fraud. The agency’s shifting position contradicts the Second Circuit’s precedent in SEC v. Govil, which requires demonstrable pecuniary harm for disgorgement. The trial court’s reliance on financier loans, rather than investor losses, further undermines the judgment.

Pastore asserts that the district court’s process deprived the defendants of due process and exceeded its authority. The firm is aggressively challenging the SEC’s approach and seeking to overturn the ruling before the Second Circuit.

Lessons for Fitness Developers: Legal Roadblocks in Zoning and Land Use Disputes

The legal battle over a proposed Life Time Fitness facility in Stamford, Connecticut, offers critical lessons for fitness developers, gym owners, and investors navigating zoning laws and community resistance. The case, High Ridge Real Estate Owner, LLC v. Stamford Board of Representatives, underscores the legal roadblocks that can arise when trying to develop fitness facilities, particularly in mixed-use or office park settings.

Key Legal Issues & Roadblocks in Fitness Facility Development

  1. Zoning Restrictions Can Block Fitness Use in Office Districts
    • In Stamford, C-D (Designed Commercial) zoning districts did not explicitly allow fitness centers. The developer had to seek a text amendment to redefine permitted uses, adding “Gymnasium or Physical Culture Establishment.”
    • Lesson: Developers must anticipate zoning hurdles and explore whether fitness centers are permitted by right or require variances, special permits, or zoning amendments.
  2. Community Opposition Can Derail Approvals
    • Local homeowners organized a protest petition that forced a political review by the Board of Representatives, leading to the rejection of the zoning amendment despite prior approval by the Stamford Zoning Board.
    • Lesson: Developers should proactively engage with local communities early in the process to mitigate opposition, address concerns (e.g., traffic, noise, parking), and avoid last-minute legal battles.
  3. Political Influence in Zoning Decisions
    • The Board of Representatives, an elected legislative body, had final say under Stamford’s Charter, allowing them to override the Zoning Board’s decision.
    • The case raised questions about predetermined biases, potential conflicts of interest, and ex parte communications between Board members and opponents of the project.
    • Lesson: Fitness developers should prepare for political influence on zoning matters and, when necessary, challenge decisions on due process or conflict of interest grounds.
  4. Legal Standards in Zoning Appeals
    • The case debated whether the Board’s rejection was based on objective zoning principles (such as land use compatibility) or political considerations.
    • The Stamford Charter requires the Board to be “guided by the same standards as the Zoning Board,” yet opponents argued that the decision was driven by political pressure rather than proper zoning analysis.
    • Lesson: Developers must ensure their proposals align with the city’s master plan, comply with legal standards, and, if rejected, challenge decisions that are arbitrary or politically motivated.
  5. Long Timelines & Litigation Risks
    • This zoning dispute has dragged on since 2018, with multiple legal proceedings, including a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling in 2022 affirming the validity of the protest petition.
    • Lesson: Fitness developers should factor in potential delays due to legal appeals and community opposition when planning projects. Legal fees, holding costs, and lost revenue from delayed openings must be part of financial projections.

Takeaways for Fitness Developers & Industry Professionals

  • Know Your Zoning: Before committing to a location, confirm that fitness centers are an allowed use or anticipate rezoning challenges.
  • Engage the Community: Public support can be as critical as legal compliance. Address concerns like traffic, noise, and environmental impact proactively.
  • Understand Political Risks: Local boards and elected officials may prioritize constituent pressure over business interests. Lobbying efforts and legal preparedness are key.
  • Be Prepared for Litigation: Zoning disputes often lead to prolonged legal battles. Have a legal strategy in place to defend approvals and challenge improper rejections.
  • Consider Alternative Locations: If a project faces heavy resistance, assess whether another district or municipality is more accommodating to fitness-related development.

As this case demonstrates, even well-funded national fitness brands like Life Time can face significant legal hurdles in developing new locations. Fitness professionals and developers must be strategic, proactive, and legally prepared when expanding in regulated markets.