Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Mastrianni & Seguljic
Firm Juris No. 415599 · New Britain, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
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) | 73 | A steady, mid-volume family-court practice |
| Home turf | New Britain (HHB): 57, then Hartford (HHD): 10, Waterbury (UWY): 4 | The HHB judicial district is their court |
| Side they take | 47 plaintiff / 26 defendant | Files first far more often — they tend to set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 2.84 | A targeted motion practice, not carpet-bombing |
| Contested-motion grant rate | 84% (52 granted vs 10 denied, of 62 decided) | When they take a motion to decision, it usually lands |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Barry Armata (37), then Abery-Wetstone (24), Caron (18) | They appear before the HHB bench often |
Bottom line: a focused, single-attorney shop that picks its motions and prevails on most of what it puts to decision in front of judges it appears before constantly. The themes that define how cases against this firm tend to unfold are the record, procedural timing, and the pressure created by ex parte and contempt filings.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is scheduling control + custody-leverage + contempt enforcement. Three patterns define them:
- Continuances are a habit, not an exception — the continuance marker hits 0.74 per case (54 total; 47 of their motions are flat-out Motions for Continuance). They manage the clock aggressively. Timelines tend to stretch when stretching helps their client.
- Discovery is heavily contested — the discovery-motion marker runs 0.685 per case (50 total), including 8 motions to compel. Discovery process functions as pressure here, not just information-gathering.
- Custody is escalated early and hard — they file Applications for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody 15 times and the GAL-appointment marker runs 0.575 per case (42 total). Combined with 0.562 contempt per case (41 total), the pattern is clear: an early custody order, then enforcement through contempt.
Layered together — control the calendar, press discovery, take custody ground early, enforce by contempt — this is a leverage style that tends to put the other side on defense from the first weeks.
The filing volume — and who sees the most of it
Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~14.68 filings on the docket per case (1,072 total). The load is, notably, almost identical whether or not the opponent has a lawyer:
- Against a pro-se opponent: 14.58 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 14.95/case. Unlike some firms, they do not visibly escalate paper against the self-represented — but they also do not let up. A pro-se spouse faces essentially the same filing volume as one with counsel, with far fewer resources to respond to it.
- The heaviest volumes on record: Cyr v. Cyr (HHB-FA19-5025636-S) — 61 filings (the firm's all-time high); Gravel v. Gravel (HHB-FA19-5025393-S) — 45 filings (opponent pro se); Diaz v. Luciano (HHD-FA20-6134387-S) — 35 filings (opponent pro se).
- In cases with self-represented opponents specifically: Gravel v. Gravel — 45 filings; Mrozek-Kwas v. Kwas (HHD-FA18-6086721-S) — 32 filings; Alosso v. Alosso (HHB-FA19-6055990-S) — 30 filings. Dozens of filings each, in cases where the opposing party had no attorney.
Where an opponent is self-represented, the volume itself becomes the pressure. The section below describes the procedural tools and rules that bear on that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 47 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Orders Before Judgment — Pendente Lite | 21 | Locks in interim terms early |
| Application for Emergency Ex Parte Order of Custody | 15 | Takes custody ground before the other side is heard |
| Motion for Contempt Post-Judgment | 15 | Enforcement / "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Order | 14 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Contempt Pendente Lite | 9 | Puts the opponent on defense mid-case |
| Motion to Compel | 8 | Discovery pressure |
| Motion for Appointment of GAL | 4 | Brings a third decision-maker into custody fights |
GAL strategy
- A GAL appears in 11% of their cases (8 of 73), and they affirmatively move for GAL appointment in others (the appointment marker runs 0.575 per case). They reach for a guardian ad litem as a custody lever in the right cases, not as a default in every file.
- They repeatedly pair with a small set of the same guardians ad litem — one recurring GAL appears in 6 of their GAL cases. When a firm and a particular GAL appear together that often, it is a feature of the firm's pattern worth being aware of.
The relevant tools and rules: the prior pairing history between a proposed GAL name and this firm is a matter of public record. A party may ask the court to appoint a GAL from outside any recurring rotation, and an appointment order can define the GAL's scope, budget, and reporting deadline — an unscoped GAL is an open-ended cost and an open-ended risk.
The bench
They appear before Hon. Barry Armata (37 rulings) more than any other judge, then Abery-Wetstone (24), Caron (18), Connors (11), and Morgan (9). Their 84% grant rate on decided motions reflects in part familiarity — they know each judge's preferences, calendar habits, and motion practice. That familiarity gap tends to narrow when a self-represented opponent learns the assigned judge's standing orders and motion practice.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a leverage-and-enforcement firm. Below, each pattern above is paired with the procedural tools and rules that bear on it — described as information, not as a recommendation for any particular case.
- Calendar control. Continuances run 0.74 per case and 47 of their motions are continuance requests. Continuances can be opposed on the record. Conversely, a Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner (§44-17 in criminal; JD-FM-292 / motion to advance in family). These tools place a party's request for delay or speed before the court for a ruling.
- The ex parte custody play. They file emergency ex parte custody applications 15 times across the data — an early, one-sided custody order is a core part of their pattern. An ex parte order is provisional by design: it is entered without both sides heard, and CT procedure allows the opposing party to request a prompt full hearing at which evidence from both sides is placed on the record. The one-sided advantage of an ex parte order is temporary once both sides are heard.
- Contempt filings. With contempt running 0.562 per case (41 total, including 15 post-judgment), contempt motions are a recurring feature of this firm's practice. Contempt turns on proof of non-compliance with a court order; contemporaneous documentation of compliance — payments, exchanges, communications — is what a contempt motion is tested against. A contempt motion that is not supported by the documents does not establish non-compliance.
- Discovery pressure. Discovery motions run 0.685 per case. Responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions or a motion to compel. The record of timely, documented responses is what reflects which party met its discovery obligations.
- GAL scope. They pair repeatedly with the same guardian ad litem (one appears in 6 cases). A proposed GAL's prior pairings with this firm are part of the public record; a party may request a GAL from outside a recurring rotation, and the appointment order is where the GAL's scope, budget, and deadline can be defined.
- The volume itself. At 2.84 motions per case the firm is targeted, not scattershot — each motion it files is meant to do work. This firm's volume and procedural-leverage style is its defining feature. A short, merits-focused record — directed at the substantive questions of custody, support, and division — is the counterweight that aggregate dockets show to that approach.
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. 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.