Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Ceil Saretta Gersten
Firm Juris No. 309482 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (40 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.
What this is. A data-driven scouting report on how this firm litigates contested divorce and custody cases. Every number below is computed from the firm's own filing history across the public CT family-court docket. This is a litigation-pattern analysis of public records — not legal advice, and not a claim about any individual case. Patterns describe tendencies, not guarantees.
This is general information about public litigation patterns — not legal advice, and not a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.
Snapshot
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 40 | A modest but active contested-family practice |
| Home turf | Hartford (HHD): 28, then New Britain (HHB): 11, New London (KNO): 1 | The HHD/HHB corridor is their court |
| Side they take | 21 plaintiff / 19 defendant | Nearly even — they take both chairs |
| Motions per case | 5.47 | A motion-active practice (219 motions across 40 cases) |
| Contested-motion grant rate | ~79% (61 granted vs 16 denied) | When they put a motion in front of a judge, it usually lands — but see sample caveat below |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Barry Armata (23), then Leo Diana (21), Jose Suarez (10) | They know the Hartford/New Britain family bench |
Bottom line: a one-attorney shop that files steadily and prevails on most contested motions it brings — but on a small, single-attorney sample. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the focus areas that tend to matter most against it are the record and procedure rather than filing count.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is clock control + continuance-driven attrition. Three numbers define them:
- 1.95 continuances per case (78 total; "Motion for Continuance" is their single most-filed motion at 75) — controlling the calendar is the core tactic. The case stretches; the cost of staying in the fight rises.
- 0.85 discovery motions per case (34 total) — discovery is a secondary front, used to keep pressure on without being the whole battlefield.
- 0.5 contempt motions per case (20 total) plus 0.55 modification motions per case (22 total) — contempt and modification are recurring levers, used to put the other side on defense and reopen settled terms.
Layer in 0.375 counsel-fee requests per case (15 total) and 0.225 ex-parte / TRO applications per case (9 total), and the picture is a steady-pressure practice: stretch the timeline with continuances, keep contempt and modification in reserve, and let cost and delay do the work.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~18.2 filings on the docket per case (726 filings across 40 cases). The volume is not evenly distributed:
- They file more against unrepresented opponents. Against a pro-se opponent: 18.96 filings/case (25 cases). Against a represented opponent: 16.8/case (15 cases). The party least equipped to respond receives the heavier paper load.
- The heaviest barrages on record: Whistnant v. Williams (HHB-FA21-5030676-S) — 46 filings (pro se opponent); Akers v. Black (HHD-FA14-4073539-S) — 42 (pro se); Davis v. Davis (HHB-FA21-6069659-S) — 42 (pro se).
- Against self-represented opponents specifically: Dontigney v. Dontigney (HHD-FA17-6078523-S) — 38 filings (pro se); Elgan v. Elgan (HHB-FA20-5028032-S) — 36 (pro se).
For a self-represented party, the data indicates that the heavier-paper end of this firm's practice is most often directed at unrepresented opponents. The section below describes the procedural patterns and the tools that correspond to that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 75 | Controls the clock — their signature move |
| Motion for Order | 18 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion to Waive Entry Fee & Pay Costs of Service | 13 | Routine intake / fee-waiver filings |
| Motion for Reference — Family Relations Division | 12 | Routes disputes to FR evaluation |
| Motion for Contempt | 12 | Puts the opponent on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 11 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 10 | Service mechanics |
| Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody | 6 | Fast, high-stakes custody move |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 15% of their cases (6 of 40), and the firm affirmatively moves for GAL appointment 11 times. The pattern reflects GAL appointment used as a custody lever rather than a neutral afterthought.
- Repeat GAL pairing: the firm repeatedly pairs with a small set of the same guardians ad litem (one recurring GAL appears 4 times across its cases). When a firm and a GAL appear together repeatedly, that recurrence is itself an observable fact on the public docket.
What the rules provide: a party may research a proposed GAL's prior pairings with a firm through the public docket. An appointment order can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline; an unscoped appointment leaves cost and duration open-ended. These are the procedural features that correspond to the GAL pattern above.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Barry Armata (23 rulings) and Hon. Leo Diana (21) far more than any other judge, then Suarez (10), Connors (8), Caron (7), Ficeto (7), and Adelman (7). Their high contested grant rate is partly familiarity — they know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. That familiarity gap narrows when a party becomes acquainted with the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice, which are matters of public record.
What to expect — and your procedural options
Against a continuance-driven attrition practice, the patterns above map to specific procedural tools and rules. The items below describe what each tool is and what the pattern is — they are descriptions, not recommendations.
- The clock they control. Continuance is their single most-filed motion (75 filings; 1.95 per case). A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner; continuances can be opposed on the record. These are the mechanisms that correspond to a calendar-control pattern.
- The contempt and modification levers. With 0.5 contempt and 0.55 modification motions per case, one or both is a common occurrence in this firm's cases. Contemporaneous proof of compliance with every order (payments, exchanges, communications) is what a contempt motion is tested against; a contempt motion that is not supported by the documents tends to fail.
- The discovery basis for sanctions. They file 0.85 discovery motions per case. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions. Where a discovery demand exceeds what the rules allow, a protective motion is the corresponding procedural response.
- The fee leverage. They seek counsel fees (15 requests; 0.375 per case). Connecticut fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). Continuances and motion volume are part of the litigation-conduct record a court may consider when expense is driven by delay.
- GAL scope. GALs appear in 15% of their cases, and the firm repeatedly pairs with the same recurring GAL (4 appearances). A proposed GAL's prior pairings are visible on the public docket, and an appointment order can specify scope, budget, and a reporting deadline.
- Record and merits. At ~18 filings per case (and ~19 against pro-se opponents), this firm's model produces a long, paper-heavy docket. A short, merits-focused record is the structural counterpart to a high-volume one. This firm's volume is its defining feature; the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are what a merits-focused record keeps in front of the court.
Methodology & limits
Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Grant rate" = Granted ÷ (Granted + Denied) on the firm's own filed motions where the docket records an outcome; many entries record no outcome and are excluded, and this firm's decided-motion sample is small (77 decided motions across 40 cases) — treat the rate as indicative, not definitive. Marker counts use keyword matching on docket event descriptions and may include related sub-types. Firm-name aggregation follows the docket's recorded firm name (the source truncates long names). Patterns reflect aggregate history, not the conduct of any one attorney or the merits of any one case.