Preview
DOCKET NO. UWY-19-6045396 S : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
ISLAMIC AMERICAN SOCIETY : WATERBURY
OF CONNECTICUT : AT WATERBURY
PLAINTIFF :
VS. :
JAWAD ASHRAF, ET AL :
DEFENDANTS : JANUARY 8, 2024
REVISED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. FRAUD
IASC is liable to the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad for continuing
acts of fraudulent misrepresentation as alleged in count 1 of the counterclaim against IASC which
is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. IASC, through the representations of
Galal, Khan and Ali fraudulently led said Defendants to believe that they were IASC members,
that the Board was a duly elected and permanent Board, that IASC is a religious nonprofit charity,
and concealed IASC financial management and bylaws. Dishonesty and concealment was
deliberate, longstanding, multifaceted and well-orchestrated and was intended to induce the
Defendants’ to trust Galal, Khan and Ali, who hold themselves out as the Board of Trustees.
Galal, Khan and Ali tricked the Defendants into ongoing charitable donations to the Board by
means of deception.
2. UNCLEAN HANDS
The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. All issues in
controversy in this litigation were the result of IASC’s Board, Galal, Khan and Ali’s
reprehensible conduct acting ostensibly on behalf of IASC. IASC’s actions did not serve the
interests of the local Muslim community or the mission of a public nonprofit charitable
organization, and were unethical and deceptive. Counts 1of the Defendant’s counterclaim is
1
incorporated by reference as if full set forth herein. The Plaintiff, IASC, by and through actions of
a Board of Trustees, has engaged in unscrupulous and unethical conduct.
3. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
IASC at all times represented that the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr.
Elawad were IASC members and led Mr. Ibrahim to believe that said Defendants were members..
Defendant Ashraf Ibrahim is a learned Sheikh, and was reason for the growth and stability of the
IASC congregation, and was the inspiration for donations that poured into IASC until November
2018.
IASC’s ersatz Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, alienated Mr. Ibrahim, the religious leader, and
Mr. Elawad, Mr.Ahmad, Mr. Rekaby, other IASC congregants and the Muslim community at
large. The Board, led by Chairman Galal, forced the departure of a religious leader who inspired
donations and was the catalyst for IASC’s ability to successfully fundraise more than five million
($ 5,000,000.00) dollars. IASC’s actions, through its putative Board, were unethical, dictatorial,
cruel, and overreaching conduct. IASC’s conduct in violation of good faith and fair dealing,
public policy, and in violation of its own bylaws, is the direct and proximate cause of all of
IASC’s own injuries.
The closures of the IASC Mosques were the direct result of IASC’s mismanagement of its
assets and failure of IASC through its board, Galal, Khan and Ali, to carry out IASC’s mission
and IASC’s duty to disclose bylaws, to act with integrity, and to hold congregational services for
all of the Muslim community.
4. FACTUAL ACCURACY AS TO DEFAMATION
2
With respect to allegations of defamation, characterizations of the purported, self-appointed
Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, as being autocratic, dictatorial and narcissistic, are accurate and true,
although not made by any Defendants.
5. STATEMENTS OF OPINION
With respect to all allegations of defamation, any characterizations of the purported, self-
appointed Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, although they were not made by any Defendants, all
constitute matters of opinion and not factual assertions.
6. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
IASC systematically and deliberately concealed membership information from
stakeholders and from Mr. Ibrahim, and the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Ibrahim,
and Mr. Elawad, by concealing bylaws, hiding the disposition of restricted donations and not
accounting to donors, and continuously misleading the Defendants by telling them that they were
members, through November 30, 2018. IASC tricked the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad,
and Mr. Elawad into given ongoing charitable donations to IASC in consideration of IASC
membership, as alleged in the Defendants’ counterclaim.
7. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENDSE OF NO PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN COMMON
NAMES IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ON BEHALF OF INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS
The name “Al Mustafa” is a common name one of the names of Muhammad the prophet,
and the name means "chosen, selected, appointed, preferred", used as an Arabic given name and
3
surname and refers to being chosen by god. IASC has no proprietary claim to the name in any
format.
8. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AS TO CUTPA ON
BEHALF OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
The Defendants the Waterbury Islamic Cultural Center (“WICC”), Mr. Hussein Ahmad,
Ossama Elawad, and Kamal Rekaby assert that they are individuals and are not engaged in
business or commerce so that CUTPA does not apply.
4
ANSWER OF OSSAMA ELAWAD, KEMAL REKAB,
ASHRAF IBRAHIM, AND HUSSEIN AHMAD
1. The Defendants paragraph 1.
2. The Defendants admit so much of paragraph 2 as asserts that IASC is the title owner of real
property located at 95 Schraffts Dr. Waterbury CT 06705 (the "Masjid Al-Mustafa Mosque"), and
120 Schraffts Dr. Waterbury, CT 06705 (the "Quran Institute Mosque"), (collectively the
"Mosques") and leaves the Plaintiff to its proof as to the remainder.
3. The Defendants admit paragraph 3.
4. The Defendants admit paragraph 4.
5. The Defendants all deny so much of paragraph 5 as asserts that pursuant to the IASC's
Bylaws, dated December 29, 2007, the Board of Trustees is the highest governing body of the
IASC and has final authority for all decisions made on behalf of the IASC. The Defendants deny
that the Board of Trustees consists of three (3) permanent members, and admit that there are 3
founders of the IASC. The Defendants deny that the permanent members of the Board of
Trustees are Magdy Galal (“Galal”), Naveed Khan (“Khan) and Sultan Ali (“Ali”). The
Defendants admit that part of paragraph 5 that asserts that Galal, Khan and Ali, the permanent
members of the Board of Trustees, helped raise approximately five million dollars to purchase
and construct the Mosques. The Defendants leave the Plaintiffs to their proof with respect to that
part of paragraph 5 that asserts that they contributed substantial sums in personal donations. The
Defendants deny so much of paragraph 5 as alleges that Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, and Mr.
Ahmad, were not part of that group that helped raise approximately five million dollars to
purchase and construct the Mosques and contributed substantial sums in personal donations.
5
6. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad admit so much of
paragraph 6 as states that the Mosques have hosted a variety of events for the Muslim community
in the greater Waterbury area. The Defendants leave the plaintiff to their proof with respect to
hosting a variety of events beyond the Waterbury areas. The Defendants deny that IASC has
continuously hosted Friday weekly prayer services. The Defendants deny that during the relevant
time periods, IASC has members who have applied for membership, pay annual dues, and who
must abide by the rules and regulations of the IASC as set by the Board of Trustees.
7. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad admit so much of
paragraph 7 that states that IASC permits non-members to attend the Mosques for peaceful
prayer, provided that they subscribe to and uphold the objectives of the mosques and deny so
much of paragraph 7 as states that a Board of Trustees had authority to establish or set rules and
regulations and are management.
8. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad deny the allegation
that the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad are not members of IASC, and
deny that they are merely permitted on to the premises as “invitees” by the IASC. The Defendants
Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elawad and Mr. Elahmad assert that they prayed peacefully,
subscribe to and uphold the objectives of the Mosques, and deny that there is any management of
the Mosques with authority to establish rules and regulations. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr.
Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elawad and Mr. Elahmad admit that Defendant Ashraf Ibrahim, while
employed by IASC, was also merely permitted on to the premises as an employee. The
Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elawad and Mr. Elahmad admit that they
have no “ownership rights” and deny that they lack “possessory” rights to the Mosques as the
term “possessory” is undefined.
6
9. The Defendant Ashraf Ibrahim denies so much of the allegations of paragraph 9 that describe
“issues with IASC's Board of Trustees for some time and on or about November 30, 2018. The
Defendants denied that Ibrahim, the then-Imam from the Masjid Al-Mustafa Mosque, publicly
“resigned” while delivering a Friday sermon because the Imam was driven out by IASC. The
Defendants deny that the Plaintiff and the Trustees accepted his “resignation” because they forced
the Imam out of IASC. The Defendants leaves the Plaintiff to its proof with regard to the
assertion that IASC “subsequently retained a new Imam.”
10. The Defendants deny the characterization of Imam Ashraf Ibrahim’s termination of
employment as “resignation”, admit so much of paragraph 10 that states that the Defendants
disagreed with the decision to hire a different Imam. Ashraf Ibrahim denies the entire remainder
of paragraph 10.
11. The Defendants deny paragraph 11.
12. The Defendants deny paragraph 12.
13. The Defendants have no knowledge of so much of the allegation of paragraph 13 as alleges
that on December 12, 2018, December 13, 2018 and December 17, 2018, that the Plaintiff IASC
sent, via certified mail, cease and desist letters to various participants in the demonstration,
including the Defendants, and Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad,
and Mr. Rekaby admit that they were advised that they were no longer welcome at the Mosques
and that any attempt to enter the Mosques would be deemed a trespass.
14. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby admit
that the plaintiff IASC also posted signs at the Mosques indicating that trespassers were not
allowed on the property.
7
15. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Rekaby admit that IASC
expressly revoked the Invitee Defendants' permission to enter the Mosque property, and deny so
much of Count 1 paragraph 15 as states that the Defendants continued to enter the Mosque
property, shout and yell at the members of the Board of Trustees, and shout and yell at the
Mosque members and attendees. Specifically, the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr.
Ahmad, , and Mr. Rekaby deny that they continued to engage in the following conduct:
a. As to paragraph 15a, the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad,
and Mr. Rekaby deny so much of paragraph 15a as alleges that on December 14, 2018, the
Defendants again disrupted the new Imam's prayer services by standing, blockading the pulpit
and shouting at the new Imam. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr.
Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby deny that their acts of disturbance made it impossible for the
peaceful prayer to continue. The Defendants deny so much of the paragraph 15a as alleges
that the Defendant caused a disruption. The Defendants have no knowledge and leave the
Plaintiff to its proof as to the remainder of paragraph 15a.
b. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Rekaby deny so much of
paragraph 15b as alleges that they again entered the Mosque despite being asked to leave and
refused to do so. The Defendants have no knowledge of the substance of the remainder of
paragraph 15b and leave the Plaintiff to its proof as to the remainder.
c. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby
deny so much of paragraph 15c as alleged that the Defendants gathered at the Mosque despite
being asked to leave and refused to do so. The Defendants deny that the police were present
and witnessed the Defendants in a verbal altercation and left only after police involvement.
8
d. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby
deny so much of paragraph 15c as alleged that the Defendants gathered in front of the
mosque, banged on the doors chanted and shouted at the individuals inside demanding to be
let in and as to the remainder of paragraph 15c, the Defendants leave the Plaintiff to its proof.
e. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby
admit paragraph 15e alleging the Defendants held a “right to return” dinner and inviting all
Muslims to attend. The Defendants admit that they encouraged all individuals to attend and
have no knowledge of “those who received cease and desist letters” leave the Plaintiff to its
proof.
f. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby
deny paragraph 15f.
16. As to paragraph 16, Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby
the Defendants deny the allegations.
17. As to paragraph 17, the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and
Mr. Rekaby deny the allegations .
18. As to paragraph 18, the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and
Mr. Rekaby all answer as follows:
a. The Defendants deny that they engaged in the following conduct in paragraph 18a;
b. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 18b .
c. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 18c as alleged that the Defendants hijacked an
account. Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby admit to hosting a potluck
dinner on January 1, 2019 because the titular Board had resigned.
9
d. The Defendants deny so much of Count 1 paragraph 18d as asserts that the Defendants
Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby “falsely” announced
that the Board of Trustees had resigned and that any order they issued was "null and void."
The Defendants deny that they falsely claimed in this post that the new interim Board of
Trustees consists of Defendants Rekaby, Ashraf, Elawad and Colson, as well as another part
of their group, Hussein Ahmed and incorporate and reallege their affirmative defense of fraud.
e. The Defendants deny paragraph 18e.
f. The Defendants deny paragraph 18f.
g. The Defendants deny paragraph 18g.
19. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 19 as alleges that the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim,
Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby conduct forced the Plaintiff IASC to
temporarily close, and admit so much of Paragraph 19 as alleges that IASC closed the Mosques
on various occasions, including closing on several Fridays, which is the main prayer service in the
Islam religion, and canceled Sunday school and weekday religious classes.
20. The Defendants all deny paragraph 20.
21. The Defendants deny paragraph 21.
22. Defendants deny paragraph 22.
23. The Defendants admit paragraph 23.
24. The Defendant admit to matters of public record set forth in paragraph 24.
25. The Defendants deny paragraph 25.
26. The Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 26.
27. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 27.
28. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 28.
10
29. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 29.
30. The Defendants deny paragraph 30.
31. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 31.
32. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 32.
ANSWER TO COUNT ONE: (Civil Conspiracy)
1-32. The Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through
32 as if fully set forth herein.
33. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 33 as alleges that the Defendants’ conduct has
resulted in any damage to the Plaintiff and deny so much of paragraph 33 as alleges that the
Defendants “forced” the Plaintiff to close the Mosques. The Defendants admit only so much of
paragraph 33 as alleges that IASC closed its Mosques.
ANSWER TO COUNT TWO: (INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS
RELATIONS AND EXPECTANCIES)
1-33. The Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through
33 as if fully set forth herein.
34. The Defendants admit so much of paragraph 34 as asserts that IASC “had a business
relationship with the members sand attendees, including religious prayer services and educational
opportunities, as well as fundraising and various charitable purposes.”
35. The Defendants deny actual knowledge of the business relationship between the Plaintiff and
the members and attendees of the Mosques and incorporate The Defendants admit that they
personally attended prayer services at the Mosque.
11
36. The Defendants deny acting with knowledge or intent to interfere with any of IASC’s
business relationship with the members and attendees of the Mosques. The Defendants deny the
remainder of paragraph 36.
37. 37. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 37 as alleges that they have made false
claims of ownership over the Mosques and/or the IASC. The Defendants admit so much of
paragraph 37 as alleges that they do have “ownership rights” in the Mosque or the IASC. The
Defendants admit that they were not involved in the founding of the IASC, and admit that they
are not on the Board of Trustees of the IASC. The Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby, and Mr.
Ahmad deny so much of paragraph 37 as alleges that that they were or are not members of the
IASC.
38. The Defendants deny the allegations of Count 2 paragraph 38.
39. The Defendants deny paragraph 39.
40. The Defendants deny so much of Count 2 paragraph 40 as alleges continued interference
with the Plaintiff’s business expectancies with its existing members and attendees and business
expectancies with its prospective members and attendees will cause the Plaintiff irreparable harm
for which there is no adequate remedy at law. The Defendants deny that their conduct caused the
Plaintiff to temporarily close, and admit only so much of paragraph 40 as asserts that IASC closed
its Mosque, “…preventing the Mosque’s members and attendees from attending prayer services.”
ANSWER TO COUNT THREE: (TRESPASS)
1-40. The Defendants answers to Paragraphs 1 through 40 of Count Two are realleged as
Paragraphs 1 through 40 of Count Three as if fully set forth herein.
41. The Defendants admit paragraph 41.
12
42. The Defendants deny that they were permitted access to IASC property as invitees only in
paragraph 42. The Plaintiffs leave the Galal, Khan and Ali to their proof regarding the fact that on
December 12, 2018, December 13, 2018 and December 17, 2018 , the defendants were informed
in writing that the Defendants Mr.Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby no longer had permission
to access the Mosques, and admit that the Plaintiffs informed said Defendants that they no longer
had permission to access the Mosques. The Defendants admit that there were signs on the
property indicate that trespassers are not allowed.
43. The Defendants deny paragraph 43.
44. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 44 as alleges that the Defendants invaded and
affected the Plaintiff’s “possessory” interest and has caused a direct injury to the Plaintiff and
deny that the Defendants’ conduct has forced the Plaintiff to close the Mosques for the safety of
the members and other attendees, and admit so much of paragraph 44 as alleges that IASC closed
its Mosques and members and attendees were prevented from attending prayer services.
45. The Defendants deny Count 3 paragraph 45.
ANSWER TO COUNT FOUR: (DEFAMATION)
1-32. The Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count One as
Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count Four as if fully set forth herein.
33. Defendants deny paragraph 33 of Count 4.
34. The Defendants deny paragraph 35 of Count 4. Commented [ES1]: 34?
35. The Defendants deny paragraph 35 of Count 4..
36. Defendants deny paragraph 36 of Count 4..
37. The Defendants deny paragraph 37 of Count 4.
13
38. The Defendants deny paragraph 38 of Count 4.
39. The Defendants deny paragraph 39 of Count 4.
ANSWER TO COUNT FIVE: (VIOLATION OF CUTPA C.G.S. §42-110b ET SEQ)
1-32. The Defendants answers to Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count One are realleged as
Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count Five as if fully set forth herein..
33. The defendants deny paragraph 33 and are individuals, and are not engaged in the conduct of
trade or commerce as defined in the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat.
§42-110b, et seq. ("CUTPA"). WICC is not a business enterprise.
34. The Defendants deny paragraph 34 of Count 5.
35. The Defendants deny paragraph 35 of Count 5.
ANSWER TO COUNT SIX: (Spoliation)
1-32. The Defendants answers to Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count Oneare realleged as
Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count Six as if fully set forth herein.
33. The Defendants deny prior knowledge of the Plaintiff’s intentions to file this action in Count
6 paragraph 33.
34. The Defendants deny paragraph 34 of Count 6.
35. The Defendants debt paragraph 35 of Count 6.
36. The Defendants deny the existence of spoliated evidence in Count 6 paragraph 36 and admit
so much of paragraph 36 that alleges that the Plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case.
37. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has been damaged.
14
COUNTERCLAIM OF, OSSAMA ELAWAD, ASHRAF IBRAHIM,
HUSSEIN AHMAD, AND KAMAL REKABY.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Defendant Mr. Ossama Elawad is a resident of Cheshire, Connecticut and a devout
practicing Muslim.
2. The Defendant Mr. Hussein Ahmad is a resident of Middlebury, Connecticut and a devout
practicing Muslim.
3. The Defendant Mr. Kemal Rekaby is a resident of Waterbury, Connecticut and a devout
practicing Muslim.
4. The Defendant Ashraf Ibrahim is a devout practicing Muslim, an Imam and religious scholar,
a resident of Waterbury, Connecticut.
5. Magdy Galal (“Galal”) has an address at 28 Holly Lane, Prospect, Connecticut.
6. Naveed Khan (“Khan”) has an address at 780 North Brooksvale Rd. Cheshire, Connecticut.
7. Sultan Ali (“Ali”) has an address at 33 Bond Street, Waterbury, Connecticut.
8. Galal and Khan were members of the Board of Directors of the United Muslim Masjid when
they made plans with Ali on or about 2006 or 2007 to incorporate and create a new religious
organization.
9. Galal, Khan and Ali (“incorporators”) adopted bylaws in August 2007 prior to incorporating
IASC in September 2007.
10. The Islamic American Society of Connecticut, Inc. (“IASC”) as a religious organization
pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stats. §33-264a organized to “unite for public worship” has been deemed
a nonprofit public charity pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §501(c)3.
15
11. IASC owns and operates real estate in the city of Waterbury including 2 Masjids or Mosques,
at 95 and 120 Schraffts Dr., a Masjid and the Quran Institute, financial institution accounts, and
personal property.
12. IASC bylaws appear to establish that IASC’s mission “to advance the teachings of Islam,”
“to serve the local Muslim community,” to “hold congregational prayers and Islamic functions”
and to that end, “maintain a place of worship” known as a Masjid or Mosque/along with its
facilities without restricts for use by all Muslims whether or not they are members.
13. Connecticut General Statute § 33-264a authorizing the formation of IASC state that IASC’s
purpose is to “unite for public worship.”
14. A religious congregation for all Muslims who wish to unite for public worship is a necessary
precondition of deriving statutory authority for IASC’s existence and is a condition precedent for
local, state and federal tax exemptions as a church or equivalent religious organization under 26
U.S.C. 501(c)3.
15. From 2008 until November 2018, a period of about 10 years, consistent with its purpose,
IASC held regularly scheduled religious services and Islamic functions led by the Defendant
Sheik or Imam, Ashraf Ibrahim, IASC’s religious leader.
16. For years until November 2018, the Defendants and their families regularly attended
religious services at IASC’s Masjid, enrolled their children in afterschool religious education,
were regular participants in Islamic lectures, events, family days and social functions.
17. For years until November 2018, the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Elawad, and Mr. Ahmad
regularly attended religious services at IASC’s Masjid, were regular participants in Islamic social
functions and were intended beneficiaries of IASC bylaws.
16
18. The Defendant Ibrahim Ashraf was at all times employed as a longstanding and beloved
religious leader of the IASC congregation.
19. Between 2008 and 2018, a decade, the Defendant Ibrahim Ashraf grew IASC membership
and inspired the IASC congregation to donate by example, making a showing of his generous
public donations to IASC despite meager wages. He faithfully led all religious services at IASC’s
Masjid, hosted Islamic social functions, designed afterschool religious programs providing
religious education to adults and children, attending community gatherings, provided family
counseling, shared in holiday celebrations and Islamic feasts, ran youth programs, presided over
and performed birth rituals, marriages, conducting funeral services and comforted families in
times of grief and loss.
20. IASC’s incorporators, Galal, Khan and Ali, held themselves out at all relevant times as being
permanent members of the Board of Trustees or Board of Directors, and as being “the highest
authority in the corporation.”
COUNT 1 - FRAUD/DELIBERATE MISREPRESENATION
1-20. Paragraphs 1-20 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
21. At all relevant times until November 2018, the IASC, through Galal, Khan and Ali,
represented to the Defendants that they were members of IASC.
22. The Defendants relied upon the representations of the Plaintiff, IASC, made by the supposed
or putative Board, Galal, Khan and Ali.
23. Galal, Khan and Ali repeatedly solicited money on behalf of IASC from the Defendants in
consideration of IASC membership, promising belonging, fellowship, a physical place to share
17
and maintain Muslim traditions, faith and social connections with other Muslim families, and
unlimited access to a grand IASC Masjid that their solicited payments would help to build.
24. In consideration of being IASC members, the Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr.
Rekaby repeatedly funded IASC, regularly paying their savings and wages to IASC which was
managed by Galal, Khan and Ali in their claimed roles as the IASC Board of Trustees.
25. Cash payments are traditional method of donation in the Muslim tradition.
26. The Defendant Ossama Elawad contributed cash regularly after weekly prayers, and paid
IASC more than twenty-six thousand seven hundred ($26,700.00) dollars in consideration of
membership at IASC.
27. The Defendant Hussein Ahmad contributed cash regularly after attending services and paid
IASC more than sixty-one thousand seven hundred ($61,700.00) dollars in consideration of
receipt of IASC membership
28. The Defendant Kemal Rekaby contributed cash regularly after services and paid IASC more
than eight thousand ($8,000.00) dollars in consideration of receipt of IASC membership.
29. All the funds paid by check, credit card and large amounts of cash were given to and handled
entirely by Galal, Khan and Ali on behalf of IASC.
30. IASC, through Galal, Khan and Ali, represented that based on their payments, the
Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby would remain members of IASC. As
members, they prayed, joined together in faith and fellowship with their Muslim community,
connected with local families with shared traditions and values, and participated in all Islamic
social functions at the IASC Masjid.
18
31. All of the Defendants’ monetary contributions in exchange for membership demonstrated a
long term economic and noneconomic investment and commitment to IASC, embodying their
religious faith, their religious organization and their community.
32. For years, until November 2018, the Defendants regularly attended religious services at
IASC’s Masjid and were regular participants in Islamic social functions.
33. IASC at all relevant times concealed the organizational bylaws from the Defendants.
34. When construction of the new Masjid was complete, IASC secretly devised a plan to
terminate employment of the Imam or Sheikh, Ashraf Ibrahim who had inspired generous
financial support from the congregants.
35. The Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby were concerned about the potential
loss of their religious leader, the Defendant Sheikh Ashraf Ibrahim, as were many members and
congregants, prompting requests to IASC a copy of the bylaws so that the Defendants could
sensibly discuss ensuring a continuing bright future for IASC.
36. IASC repeatedly withheld bylaws from disclosure.
37. The Defendants most recently requested inspection of the bylaws on November 11, 2018 at a
meeting with Galal, who acted on behalf of IASC.
38. At the meeting, IASC, Galal falsely outwardly agreed, concealing his true intentions.
39. IASC, through Galal, Khan and Ali, devised a scheme not only to deny the Defendants’
request over the next month or so, but set in motion a series of steps designed to ensure that
exclusive control over IASC remained concentrated in 3 individuals.
40. First, on November 12, 2018, IASC’s incorporators, Galal, Khan and Ali, tendered a false
resignation that conveniently was not actually going into effect until December 31, 2018, which
naturally caused confusion and consternation among congregants and among the Defendants, who
19
tried to reach IASC’s putative Board for reconciliation and discussion. The Plaintiff ignored the
Defendants requests to continue thoughtful discussions.
41. On November 29, 2018, IASC’s putative Board withdrew its resignations of its putative
Board, Galal, Khan and Ali.
42. As a second step, on November 30, 2018, IASC sent an oblique message essentially denying
that Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby and Mr. Ahmad had ever been IASC members, setting up a legal
claim that they had no standing.
43. The Defendants were shocked, confused and dismayed by the sophisticated subterfuge on the
part of IASC.
44. Despite disappointment and confusion, as devout and observant Muslims and who were
completely unaware that IASC was setting up the third step of an ambush, the Defendants
returned as usual to the Masjid simply to pray on or about December 1, 2018.
45. When they arrived to pray, the Defendants were horrified to discover that IASC had multiple
police officers waiting at the Masjid for the purpose of instilling fear and to intimidate the
Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby.
46. Thereafter, Defendants were informed that they were not welcome.
47. IASC locked the IASC gates and doors of the Masjid barring the Defendants from entering,
which constituted expelling Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby without cause.
48. IASC communicated to the Defendants that IASC would consider them trespassers on IASC
property and they would be subject to arrest and prosecution if they returned to IASC.
49. IASC by deliberate overt acts and material omissions by its putative Board, manipulated and
deceived the Defendants into believing that in consideration of making payments to IASC,
20
contributing their family’s wages and savings directly to IASC’s putative Board, Galal, Khan and
Ali, acting on behalf of IASC as a Board of Trustees, that the Defendants were members of IASC.
50. IASC’s deception and fraudulent misrepresentations and actions caused shock, distress and
mental anguish with risk of physical harm.
51. The Defendants would not have contributed or paid money to IASC if they had not been
deceived into thinking that they were members of IASC.
52. As a result of deliberate misrepresentations and deception regarding their status as members,
through overt acts and material fraudulent omissions made by IASC and its putative Board, Galal,
Khan and Ali, Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby and Mr. Ahmad have suffered and
continued to suffer emotional loss and damage with risk of physical injury as well as significant
monetary or economic losses. The Defendants have had to reinvest significant sums to reestablish
a community and a masjid to continue to practice their faith and seek equitable and other relief as
set forth in their prayer for relief.
COUNT 2 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
1-37. Paragraphs 1-37 of the First Count are incorporated by reference and made paragraphs 1-37
of this count as if fully set forth herein.
38. At the meeting, IASC, Galal outwardly agreed to provide a copy of the bylaws. Commented [ES2]: Incomplete …
39. In response to the Defendants’ request for a copy of the bylaws, IASC’s incorporators, Galal,
Khan and Ali, tendered a resignation that would be effective on December 31, 2018, which led to
great confusion and consternation among congregants and the Defendants, who tried to reconcile
with IASC’s putative Board.
40. The Plaintiff ignored the Defendants efforts for reconciliation.
21
41. The Plaintiff on November 29, 2018 withdrew resignations of its putative Board, Galal,
Khan and Ali.
42. The next day, on November 30, 2018, IASC sent an oblique message essentially denying that
Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby and Mr. Ahmad had ever been IASC members.
43. The Defendants were shocked, confused and dismayed.
44. Thereafter, despite disappointment and confusion, as devout and observant Muslims the
Defendants returned as usual to the Masjid simply to pray on or about December 1, 2018.
45. When they arrived to pray, the Defendants were horrified to find that IASC had multiple
police officers waiting at the Masjid.
46. Thereafter, Defendants were informed that they were not welcome on IASC property.
47. IASC locked the IASC gates and doors of the Masjid barring the Defendants from entering.
48. IASC communicated to the Defendants that IASC would consider them trespassers on IASC
property and they would be subject to arrest and prosecution if they returned to IASC.
49. IASC by its negligent acts negligently led Sheikh Ashraf Ibrahim and the Defendants Mr.
Elawad, Mr.Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby into believing that in consideration of making payments to
IASC and contributing their family’s wages and savings directly to IASC’s putative Board, Galal,
Khan and Ali, acting on behalf of IASC as a Board of Trustees, that the Defendants Mr. Elawad,
Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby were members of IASC.
50. IASC’s negligent misrepresentations and actions caused shock, distress and mental anguish
with risk of physical harm.
51. The Defendants would not have contributed or paid money to IASC if they had known that
they were not members of IASC.
22
52. As a result of negligent misrepresentations and deception regarding their status as members,
through negligent overt acts and omissions made by IASC and its putative Board, Galal, Khan
and Ali, Mr. Ashraf Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby and Mr. Ahmad have suffered and
continued to suffer emotional loss and damage as well as significant monetary or economic
losses. The Defendants have had to reinvest significant sums to reestablish a community and a
masjid to continue to practice their faith and seek equitable and other relief as set forth in their
prayer for relief.
COUNT 3 – CONVERSION / CIVIL THEFT
1-51. Paragraphs 1-51 of the First Count are incorporated by reference and hereby made
paragraphs 1-51 of this count.
52. IASC wrongfully obtained financial contributions to IASC by false pretenses, deceiving the
Defendants into believing that they were members who were entitled to worship at the Masjid
owned by IASC and would always belong at IASC and in the organization.
53. IASC wrongfully converted the Defendants’ payments and contributions to IASC to its own
use and deprived the Defendants of consideration paid, monetary payments and contributions.
IASC withheld the right to membership, the right to seek sanctuary in the Masjid as a house of
worship, tore the bonds that bind members of the community together and deprived the Defendant
of use of IASC facilities to which they were entitled.
54. As a result of IASC’s wrongful conversion of their monetary contributions, the Defendants
have suffered emotional distress, significant monetary and economic losses and incurred
attorney’s fees.
23
55. The Defendants have suffered economic harm, emotional distress with risk of bodily injury,
have had to reinvest significant sums to reestablish a Masjid where they could continue to observe
their faith and worship and seek damages, restitution, equitable and other relief as set forth in
their prayer for relief.
COUNT 4 - CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“CUTPA”)
1-52. Paragraphs 1-52 of Count Two are hereby incorporated by reference and made paragraphs
1-52 of this count as if fully set forth herein.
53. The Defendants and all donors, members of the public, at all relevant times believed and
trusted that they were making payments to a religious nonprofit charity abiding by the
corporate laws of the State of Connecticut, the regulations of the Department of Consumer
Protection, and that IASC had complied with IRS rules in obtaining nonprofit status.
54. IASC concealed from the Defendants and from the State, local government and federal
government that it was operating as a business.
55. IASC withheld bylaws and amendments from the Defendants, conduct that harmed the
Defendants, taxpayers, and consumers generally and was unscrupulous, unconscionable and
deceptive.
56. IASC refused to disclose bylaws upon request despite a duty to do so and expelled the
Defendants, causing the loss of donations, savings and wages paid to IASC and depriving them of
the benefit of a Masjid, of longstanding social connection and bonds with their community, and
the use of IASC facilities for Islamic prayer, family and social functions.
57. IASC was operating, per Galal, Khan and Ali, as a for-profit business engaged in trade or
commerce, and admits that its congregation members are tallied up as if they are a customer base
24
from which IASC expects to derive business income and in which IASC claim a proprietary
interest, all of which was unknown by the Defendants.
58. IASC’s conduct is utterly inconsistent with a nonprofit religious public charity pursuant to 26
U.S.C. 501(c)3 and is inconsistent with state statutory authority for IASC’s existence.
59. IASC operation has been and continues to be unethical, unscrupulous, harmful to taxpayers
and consumers, and unconscionable.
60. IASC has been operated in the manner of a private corporation or business owned by private
owners for profit.
61. At all times relevant hereto, IASC was engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of
Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110a (4).
62. The actions, omissions, evasiveness, and overall conduct of IASC constitutes unfair and
deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of its trade or business, all in violation of Conn. Gen.
Stat. §§42-110a et seq. and 42-110b, in that such actions, omissions, evasiveness and conduct
were and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous.
63. IASC’s conduct has been immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous and has caused
ascertainable loss and substantial ascertainable monetary injury to the Defendants, donors, and the
local Muslim community, and the Defendants seek relief as set forth in their prayer for relief
below.
COUNT 5 - UNJUST ENRICHMENT
1-52. Paragraphs 1-52 of Count 2 are hereby incorporated by reference and made paragraphs 1-52
of this count as if fully set forth herein.
53. IASC seeks to retain the value the Defendants’ payments and charitable donations
25
52. IASC has been unjustly enriched.
53. The Defendants have sustained losses, monetary damage, and emotion al distress with risk of
physical harm as a result of the reliance on IASC’s representations and are entitled to recovery of
money damages as set forth in their prayer for relief.
COUNT 7 – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
1-51. Paragraphs 1-51 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
52. IASC intended to inflict emotional distress or that IASC knew or should have known that
emotional distress was the likely result of its conduct.
53. IASC’s conduct was intentional, extreme and outrageous.
54. IASC’s conduct caused severe emotional distress.
55. The Defendants have suffered extreme and continuing emotional distress with risk of
physical harm for which IASC is liable for money damages as set forth in their prayer for relief.
COUNT 8 - NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
1-51. Paragraphs 1-51 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
52. IASC’S conduct created an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress.
53. The risk of IASC’s conduct causing emotional distress was foreseeable and that IASC knew
or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of its conduct.
54. IASC’s conduct caused severe emotional distress.
55. The Defendants have suffered extreme and continuing emotional distress with risk of
physical harm for which IASC is liable for money damages as set forth in their prayer for relief.
26
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Defendants seek the following relief:
1. Money damages;
2. Restitution;
3. Punitive damages for intentional conduct, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, conversion, and violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§42-110a et seq;
4. Attorney’s fees;
5. Costs; and/or
6. Such other relief as the court deems just and proper.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS
WICC RIZWAN TARAR
OSSAMA ELAWAD AHMED ABDULRAZAK
ASHRAF IBRAHIM KAMAL REKABY
HUSSEIN AHMAD WILLIAM COLSON
KAMAL REKABY SUMERA GHAZI
SAED ELAHMAD JAWAD ASHRAF
KHALED OMER OSSAMA ELAWAD
By:_____400893_________________ By:__________/437678/1_________
MERYL ANNE SPAT, ESQ. REFAI ARAFIN, ESQ
Attorney for the Plaintiffs/Counterclaimants Law Office of Refai Arafin
41 Burr Mountain Rd. 1224 Mil St. Bldg B
Torrington CT 06790 East Berlin CT 06023
Phone 203.805 8256 Refai@refinlaw.com
spatfax@gmail.com 860 856 6889
27
28
CERTIFICATION
On February 18, 2021, the foregoing documents was filed electronically and served by
mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all
parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept
electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Partiers may access this filing
through the Court's electronic filing System.
Attorney Refai Arefin
Law Office of Refai Arefin, LLC
1224 Mill St. Bldg B
East Berlin CT 06023
refai@rarefinlaw.com
Jonathan A. Kaplan, Esq.
Pullman and Comley LLC
90 Statehouse Square
Hartford CT 06103-3702
T 860 424 4300
F 860 424 4370
By:________/04575/__________________
MERYL ANNE SPAT
29
Preview
DOCKET NO. UWY-19-6045396 S : SUPERIOR COURT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ISLAMIC AMERICAN SOCIETY : WATERBURY OF CONNECTICUT : AT WATERBURY PLAINTIFF : VS. : JAWAD ASHRAF, ET AL : DEFENDANTS : JANUARY 8, 2024 REVISED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. FRAUD IASC is liable to the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad for continuing acts of fraudulent misrepresentation as alleged in count 1 of the counterclaim against IASC which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. IASC, through the representations of Galal, Khan and Ali fraudulently led said Defendants to believe that they were IASC members, that the Board was a duly elected and permanent Board, that IASC is a religious nonprofit charity, and concealed IASC financial management and bylaws. Dishonesty and concealment was deliberate, longstanding, multifaceted and well-orchestrated and was intended to induce the Defendants’ to trust Galal, Khan and Ali, who hold themselves out as the Board of Trustees. Galal, Khan and Ali tricked the Defendants into ongoing charitable donations to the Board by means of deception. 2. UNCLEAN HANDS The Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. All issues in controversy in this litigation were the result of IASC’s Board, Galal, Khan and Ali’s reprehensible conduct acting ostensibly on behalf of IASC. IASC’s actions did not serve the interests of the local Muslim community or the mission of a public nonprofit charitable organization, and were unethical and deceptive. Counts 1of the Defendant’s counterclaim is 1 incorporated by reference as if full set forth herein. The Plaintiff, IASC, by and through actions of a Board of Trustees, has engaged in unscrupulous and unethical conduct. 3. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IASC at all times represented that the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad were IASC members and led Mr. Ibrahim to believe that said Defendants were members.. Defendant Ashraf Ibrahim is a learned Sheikh, and was reason for the growth and stability of the IASC congregation, and was the inspiration for donations that poured into IASC until November 2018. IASC’s ersatz Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, alienated Mr. Ibrahim, the religious leader, and Mr. Elawad, Mr.Ahmad, Mr. Rekaby, other IASC congregants and the Muslim community at large. The Board, led by Chairman Galal, forced the departure of a religious leader who inspired donations and was the catalyst for IASC’s ability to successfully fundraise more than five million ($ 5,000,000.00) dollars. IASC’s actions, through its putative Board, were unethical, dictatorial, cruel, and overreaching conduct. IASC’s conduct in violation of good faith and fair dealing, public policy, and in violation of its own bylaws, is the direct and proximate cause of all of IASC’s own injuries. The closures of the IASC Mosques were the direct result of IASC’s mismanagement of its assets and failure of IASC through its board, Galal, Khan and Ali, to carry out IASC’s mission and IASC’s duty to disclose bylaws, to act with integrity, and to hold congregational services for all of the Muslim community. 4. FACTUAL ACCURACY AS TO DEFAMATION 2 With respect to allegations of defamation, characterizations of the purported, self-appointed Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, as being autocratic, dictatorial and narcissistic, are accurate and true, although not made by any Defendants. 5. STATEMENTS OF OPINION With respect to all allegations of defamation, any characterizations of the purported, self- appointed Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, although they were not made by any Defendants, all constitute matters of opinion and not factual assertions. 6. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT IASC systematically and deliberately concealed membership information from stakeholders and from Mr. Ibrahim, and the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Ibrahim, and Mr. Elawad, by concealing bylaws, hiding the disposition of restricted donations and not accounting to donors, and continuously misleading the Defendants by telling them that they were members, through November 30, 2018. IASC tricked the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad into given ongoing charitable donations to IASC in consideration of IASC membership, as alleged in the Defendants’ counterclaim. 7. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENDSE OF NO PROPRIETARY INTEREST IN COMMON NAMES IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN ON BEHALF OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS The name “Al Mustafa” is a common name one of the names of Muhammad the prophet, and the name means "chosen, selected, appointed, preferred", used as an Arabic given name and 3 surname and refers to being chosen by god. IASC has no proprietary claim to the name in any format. 8. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE AS TO CUTPA ON BEHALF OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS The Defendants the Waterbury Islamic Cultural Center (“WICC”), Mr. Hussein Ahmad, Ossama Elawad, and Kamal Rekaby assert that they are individuals and are not engaged in business or commerce so that CUTPA does not apply. 4 ANSWER OF OSSAMA ELAWAD, KEMAL REKAB, ASHRAF IBRAHIM, AND HUSSEIN AHMAD 1. The Defendants paragraph 1. 2. The Defendants admit so much of paragraph 2 as asserts that IASC is the title owner of real property located at 95 Schraffts Dr. Waterbury CT 06705 (the "Masjid Al-Mustafa Mosque"), and 120 Schraffts Dr. Waterbury, CT 06705 (the "Quran Institute Mosque"), (collectively the "Mosques") and leaves the Plaintiff to its proof as to the remainder. 3. The Defendants admit paragraph 3. 4. The Defendants admit paragraph 4. 5. The Defendants all deny so much of paragraph 5 as asserts that pursuant to the IASC's Bylaws, dated December 29, 2007, the Board of Trustees is the highest governing body of the IASC and has final authority for all decisions made on behalf of the IASC. The Defendants deny that the Board of Trustees consists of three (3) permanent members, and admit that there are 3 founders of the IASC. The Defendants deny that the permanent members of the Board of Trustees are Magdy Galal (“Galal”), Naveed Khan (“Khan) and Sultan Ali (“Ali”). The Defendants admit that part of paragraph 5 that asserts that Galal, Khan and Ali, the permanent members of the Board of Trustees, helped raise approximately five million dollars to purchase and construct the Mosques. The Defendants leave the Plaintiffs to their proof with respect to that part of paragraph 5 that asserts that they contributed substantial sums in personal donations. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 5 as alleges that Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, and Mr. Ahmad, were not part of that group that helped raise approximately five million dollars to purchase and construct the Mosques and contributed substantial sums in personal donations. 5 6. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad admit so much of paragraph 6 as states that the Mosques have hosted a variety of events for the Muslim community in the greater Waterbury area. The Defendants leave the plaintiff to their proof with respect to hosting a variety of events beyond the Waterbury areas. The Defendants deny that IASC has continuously hosted Friday weekly prayer services. The Defendants deny that during the relevant time periods, IASC has members who have applied for membership, pay annual dues, and who must abide by the rules and regulations of the IASC as set by the Board of Trustees. 7. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad admit so much of paragraph 7 that states that IASC permits non-members to attend the Mosques for peaceful prayer, provided that they subscribe to and uphold the objectives of the mosques and deny so much of paragraph 7 as states that a Board of Trustees had authority to establish or set rules and regulations and are management. 8. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad deny the allegation that the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Elawad are not members of IASC, and deny that they are merely permitted on to the premises as “invitees” by the IASC. The Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elawad and Mr. Elahmad assert that they prayed peacefully, subscribe to and uphold the objectives of the Mosques, and deny that there is any management of the Mosques with authority to establish rules and regulations. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elawad and Mr. Elahmad admit that Defendant Ashraf Ibrahim, while employed by IASC, was also merely permitted on to the premises as an employee. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elawad and Mr. Elahmad admit that they have no “ownership rights” and deny that they lack “possessory” rights to the Mosques as the term “possessory” is undefined. 6 9. The Defendant Ashraf Ibrahim denies so much of the allegations of paragraph 9 that describe “issues with IASC's Board of Trustees for some time and on or about November 30, 2018. The Defendants denied that Ibrahim, the then-Imam from the Masjid Al-Mustafa Mosque, publicly “resigned” while delivering a Friday sermon because the Imam was driven out by IASC. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff and the Trustees accepted his “resignation” because they forced the Imam out of IASC. The Defendants leaves the Plaintiff to its proof with regard to the assertion that IASC “subsequently retained a new Imam.” 10. The Defendants deny the characterization of Imam Ashraf Ibrahim’s termination of employment as “resignation”, admit so much of paragraph 10 that states that the Defendants disagreed with the decision to hire a different Imam. Ashraf Ibrahim denies the entire remainder of paragraph 10. 11. The Defendants deny paragraph 11. 12. The Defendants deny paragraph 12. 13. The Defendants have no knowledge of so much of the allegation of paragraph 13 as alleges that on December 12, 2018, December 13, 2018 and December 17, 2018, that the Plaintiff IASC sent, via certified mail, cease and desist letters to various participants in the demonstration, including the Defendants, and Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby admit that they were advised that they were no longer welcome at the Mosques and that any attempt to enter the Mosques would be deemed a trespass. 14. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby admit that the plaintiff IASC also posted signs at the Mosques indicating that trespassers were not allowed on the property. 7 15. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Rekaby admit that IASC expressly revoked the Invitee Defendants' permission to enter the Mosque property, and deny so much of Count 1 paragraph 15 as states that the Defendants continued to enter the Mosque property, shout and yell at the members of the Board of Trustees, and shout and yell at the Mosque members and attendees. Specifically, the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, , and Mr. Rekaby deny that they continued to engage in the following conduct: a. As to paragraph 15a, the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby deny so much of paragraph 15a as alleges that on December 14, 2018, the Defendants again disrupted the new Imam's prayer services by standing, blockading the pulpit and shouting at the new Imam. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby deny that their acts of disturbance made it impossible for the peaceful prayer to continue. The Defendants deny so much of the paragraph 15a as alleges that the Defendant caused a disruption. The Defendants have no knowledge and leave the Plaintiff to its proof as to the remainder of paragraph 15a. b. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, and Mr. Rekaby deny so much of paragraph 15b as alleges that they again entered the Mosque despite being asked to leave and refused to do so. The Defendants have no knowledge of the substance of the remainder of paragraph 15b and leave the Plaintiff to its proof as to the remainder. c. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby deny so much of paragraph 15c as alleged that the Defendants gathered at the Mosque despite being asked to leave and refused to do so. The Defendants deny that the police were present and witnessed the Defendants in a verbal altercation and left only after police involvement. 8 d. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby deny so much of paragraph 15c as alleged that the Defendants gathered in front of the mosque, banged on the doors chanted and shouted at the individuals inside demanding to be let in and as to the remainder of paragraph 15c, the Defendants leave the Plaintiff to its proof. e. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby admit paragraph 15e alleging the Defendants held a “right to return” dinner and inviting all Muslims to attend. The Defendants admit that they encouraged all individuals to attend and have no knowledge of “those who received cease and desist letters” leave the Plaintiff to its proof. f. The Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby deny paragraph 15f. 16. As to paragraph 16, Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby the Defendants deny the allegations. 17. As to paragraph 17, the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby deny the allegations . 18. As to paragraph 18, the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby all answer as follows: a. The Defendants deny that they engaged in the following conduct in paragraph 18a; b. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 18b . c. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 18c as alleged that the Defendants hijacked an account. Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby admit to hosting a potluck dinner on January 1, 2019 because the titular Board had resigned. 9 d. The Defendants deny so much of Count 1 paragraph 18d as asserts that the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby “falsely” announced that the Board of Trustees had resigned and that any order they issued was "null and void." The Defendants deny that they falsely claimed in this post that the new interim Board of Trustees consists of Defendants Rekaby, Ashraf, Elawad and Colson, as well as another part of their group, Hussein Ahmed and incorporate and reallege their affirmative defense of fraud. e. The Defendants deny paragraph 18e. f. The Defendants deny paragraph 18f. g. The Defendants deny paragraph 18g. 19. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 19 as alleges that the Defendants Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Elahmad, and Mr. Rekaby conduct forced the Plaintiff IASC to temporarily close, and admit so much of Paragraph 19 as alleges that IASC closed the Mosques on various occasions, including closing on several Fridays, which is the main prayer service in the Islam religion, and canceled Sunday school and weekday religious classes. 20. The Defendants all deny paragraph 20. 21. The Defendants deny paragraph 21. 22. Defendants deny paragraph 22. 23. The Defendants admit paragraph 23. 24. The Defendant admit to matters of public record set forth in paragraph 24. 25. The Defendants deny paragraph 25. 26. The Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 26. 27. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 27. 28. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 28. 10 29. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 29. 30. The Defendants deny paragraph 30. 31. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 31. 32. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 32. ANSWER TO COUNT ONE: (Civil Conspiracy) 1-32. The Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 32 as if fully set forth herein. 33. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 33 as alleges that the Defendants’ conduct has resulted in any damage to the Plaintiff and deny so much of paragraph 33 as alleges that the Defendants “forced” the Plaintiff to close the Mosques. The Defendants admit only so much of paragraph 33 as alleges that IASC closed its Mosques. ANSWER TO COUNT TWO: (INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS AND EXPECTANCIES) 1-33. The Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 33 as if fully set forth herein. 34. The Defendants admit so much of paragraph 34 as asserts that IASC “had a business relationship with the members sand attendees, including religious prayer services and educational opportunities, as well as fundraising and various charitable purposes.” 35. The Defendants deny actual knowledge of the business relationship between the Plaintiff and the members and attendees of the Mosques and incorporate The Defendants admit that they personally attended prayer services at the Mosque. 11 36. The Defendants deny acting with knowledge or intent to interfere with any of IASC’s business relationship with the members and attendees of the Mosques. The Defendants deny the remainder of paragraph 36. 37. 37. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 37 as alleges that they have made false claims of ownership over the Mosques and/or the IASC. The Defendants admit so much of paragraph 37 as alleges that they do have “ownership rights” in the Mosque or the IASC. The Defendants admit that they were not involved in the founding of the IASC, and admit that they are not on the Board of Trustees of the IASC. The Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby, and Mr. Ahmad deny so much of paragraph 37 as alleges that that they were or are not members of the IASC. 38. The Defendants deny the allegations of Count 2 paragraph 38. 39. The Defendants deny paragraph 39. 40. The Defendants deny so much of Count 2 paragraph 40 as alleges continued interference with the Plaintiff’s business expectancies with its existing members and attendees and business expectancies with its prospective members and attendees will cause the Plaintiff irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. The Defendants deny that their conduct caused the Plaintiff to temporarily close, and admit only so much of paragraph 40 as asserts that IASC closed its Mosque, “…preventing the Mosque’s members and attendees from attending prayer services.” ANSWER TO COUNT THREE: (TRESPASS) 1-40. The Defendants answers to Paragraphs 1 through 40 of Count Two are realleged as Paragraphs 1 through 40 of Count Three as if fully set forth herein. 41. The Defendants admit paragraph 41. 12 42. The Defendants deny that they were permitted access to IASC property as invitees only in paragraph 42. The Plaintiffs leave the Galal, Khan and Ali to their proof regarding the fact that on December 12, 2018, December 13, 2018 and December 17, 2018 , the defendants were informed in writing that the Defendants Mr.Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby no longer had permission to access the Mosques, and admit that the Plaintiffs informed said Defendants that they no longer had permission to access the Mosques. The Defendants admit that there were signs on the property indicate that trespassers are not allowed. 43. The Defendants deny paragraph 43. 44. The Defendants deny so much of paragraph 44 as alleges that the Defendants invaded and affected the Plaintiff’s “possessory” interest and has caused a direct injury to the Plaintiff and deny that the Defendants’ conduct has forced the Plaintiff to close the Mosques for the safety of the members and other attendees, and admit so much of paragraph 44 as alleges that IASC closed its Mosques and members and attendees were prevented from attending prayer services. 45. The Defendants deny Count 3 paragraph 45. ANSWER TO COUNT FOUR: (DEFAMATION) 1-32. The Defendants reallege their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count One as Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count Four as if fully set forth herein. 33. Defendants deny paragraph 33 of Count 4. 34. The Defendants deny paragraph 35 of Count 4. Commented [ES1]: 34? 35. The Defendants deny paragraph 35 of Count 4.. 36. Defendants deny paragraph 36 of Count 4.. 37. The Defendants deny paragraph 37 of Count 4. 13 38. The Defendants deny paragraph 38 of Count 4. 39. The Defendants deny paragraph 39 of Count 4. ANSWER TO COUNT FIVE: (VIOLATION OF CUTPA C.G.S. §42-110b ET SEQ) 1-32. The Defendants answers to Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count One are realleged as Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count Five as if fully set forth herein.. 33. The defendants deny paragraph 33 and are individuals, and are not engaged in the conduct of trade or commerce as defined in the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110b, et seq. ("CUTPA"). WICC is not a business enterprise. 34. The Defendants deny paragraph 34 of Count 5. 35. The Defendants deny paragraph 35 of Count 5. ANSWER TO COUNT SIX: (Spoliation) 1-32. The Defendants answers to Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count Oneare realleged as Paragraphs 1 through 32 of Count Six as if fully set forth herein. 33. The Defendants deny prior knowledge of the Plaintiff’s intentions to file this action in Count 6 paragraph 33. 34. The Defendants deny paragraph 34 of Count 6. 35. The Defendants debt paragraph 35 of Count 6. 36. The Defendants deny the existence of spoliated evidence in Count 6 paragraph 36 and admit so much of paragraph 36 that alleges that the Plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case. 37. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has been damaged. 14 COUNTERCLAIM OF, OSSAMA ELAWAD, ASHRAF IBRAHIM, HUSSEIN AHMAD, AND KAMAL REKABY. INTRODUCTION 1. The Defendant Mr. Ossama Elawad is a resident of Cheshire, Connecticut and a devout practicing Muslim. 2. The Defendant Mr. Hussein Ahmad is a resident of Middlebury, Connecticut and a devout practicing Muslim. 3. The Defendant Mr. Kemal Rekaby is a resident of Waterbury, Connecticut and a devout practicing Muslim. 4. The Defendant Ashraf Ibrahim is a devout practicing Muslim, an Imam and religious scholar, a resident of Waterbury, Connecticut. 5. Magdy Galal (“Galal”) has an address at 28 Holly Lane, Prospect, Connecticut. 6. Naveed Khan (“Khan”) has an address at 780 North Brooksvale Rd. Cheshire, Connecticut. 7. Sultan Ali (“Ali”) has an address at 33 Bond Street, Waterbury, Connecticut. 8. Galal and Khan were members of the Board of Directors of the United Muslim Masjid when they made plans with Ali on or about 2006 or 2007 to incorporate and create a new religious organization. 9. Galal, Khan and Ali (“incorporators”) adopted bylaws in August 2007 prior to incorporating IASC in September 2007. 10. The Islamic American Society of Connecticut, Inc. (“IASC”) as a religious organization pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stats. §33-264a organized to “unite for public worship” has been deemed a nonprofit public charity pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §501(c)3. 15 11. IASC owns and operates real estate in the city of Waterbury including 2 Masjids or Mosques, at 95 and 120 Schraffts Dr., a Masjid and the Quran Institute, financial institution accounts, and personal property. 12. IASC bylaws appear to establish that IASC’s mission “to advance the teachings of Islam,” “to serve the local Muslim community,” to “hold congregational prayers and Islamic functions” and to that end, “maintain a place of worship” known as a Masjid or Mosque/along with its facilities without restricts for use by all Muslims whether or not they are members. 13. Connecticut General Statute § 33-264a authorizing the formation of IASC state that IASC’s purpose is to “unite for public worship.” 14. A religious congregation for all Muslims who wish to unite for public worship is a necessary precondition of deriving statutory authority for IASC’s existence and is a condition precedent for local, state and federal tax exemptions as a church or equivalent religious organization under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)3. 15. From 2008 until November 2018, a period of about 10 years, consistent with its purpose, IASC held regularly scheduled religious services and Islamic functions led by the Defendant Sheik or Imam, Ashraf Ibrahim, IASC’s religious leader. 16. For years until November 2018, the Defendants and their families regularly attended religious services at IASC’s Masjid, enrolled their children in afterschool religious education, were regular participants in Islamic lectures, events, family days and social functions. 17. For years until November 2018, the Defendants Mr. Rekaby, Mr. Elawad, and Mr. Ahmad regularly attended religious services at IASC’s Masjid, were regular participants in Islamic social functions and were intended beneficiaries of IASC bylaws. 16 18. The Defendant Ibrahim Ashraf was at all times employed as a longstanding and beloved religious leader of the IASC congregation. 19. Between 2008 and 2018, a decade, the Defendant Ibrahim Ashraf grew IASC membership and inspired the IASC congregation to donate by example, making a showing of his generous public donations to IASC despite meager wages. He faithfully led all religious services at IASC’s Masjid, hosted Islamic social functions, designed afterschool religious programs providing religious education to adults and children, attending community gatherings, provided family counseling, shared in holiday celebrations and Islamic feasts, ran youth programs, presided over and performed birth rituals, marriages, conducting funeral services and comforted families in times of grief and loss. 20. IASC’s incorporators, Galal, Khan and Ali, held themselves out at all relevant times as being permanent members of the Board of Trustees or Board of Directors, and as being “the highest authority in the corporation.” COUNT 1 - FRAUD/DELIBERATE MISREPRESENATION 1-20. Paragraphs 1-20 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 21. At all relevant times until November 2018, the IASC, through Galal, Khan and Ali, represented to the Defendants that they were members of IASC. 22. The Defendants relied upon the representations of the Plaintiff, IASC, made by the supposed or putative Board, Galal, Khan and Ali. 23. Galal, Khan and Ali repeatedly solicited money on behalf of IASC from the Defendants in consideration of IASC membership, promising belonging, fellowship, a physical place to share 17 and maintain Muslim traditions, faith and social connections with other Muslim families, and unlimited access to a grand IASC Masjid that their solicited payments would help to build. 24. In consideration of being IASC members, the Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby repeatedly funded IASC, regularly paying their savings and wages to IASC which was managed by Galal, Khan and Ali in their claimed roles as the IASC Board of Trustees. 25. Cash payments are traditional method of donation in the Muslim tradition. 26. The Defendant Ossama Elawad contributed cash regularly after weekly prayers, and paid IASC more than twenty-six thousand seven hundred ($26,700.00) dollars in consideration of membership at IASC. 27. The Defendant Hussein Ahmad contributed cash regularly after attending services and paid IASC more than sixty-one thousand seven hundred ($61,700.00) dollars in consideration of receipt of IASC membership 28. The Defendant Kemal Rekaby contributed cash regularly after services and paid IASC more than eight thousand ($8,000.00) dollars in consideration of receipt of IASC membership. 29. All the funds paid by check, credit card and large amounts of cash were given to and handled entirely by Galal, Khan and Ali on behalf of IASC. 30. IASC, through Galal, Khan and Ali, represented that based on their payments, the Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby would remain members of IASC. As members, they prayed, joined together in faith and fellowship with their Muslim community, connected with local families with shared traditions and values, and participated in all Islamic social functions at the IASC Masjid. 18 31. All of the Defendants’ monetary contributions in exchange for membership demonstrated a long term economic and noneconomic investment and commitment to IASC, embodying their religious faith, their religious organization and their community. 32. For years, until November 2018, the Defendants regularly attended religious services at IASC’s Masjid and were regular participants in Islamic social functions. 33. IASC at all relevant times concealed the organizational bylaws from the Defendants. 34. When construction of the new Masjid was complete, IASC secretly devised a plan to terminate employment of the Imam or Sheikh, Ashraf Ibrahim who had inspired generous financial support from the congregants. 35. The Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby were concerned about the potential loss of their religious leader, the Defendant Sheikh Ashraf Ibrahim, as were many members and congregants, prompting requests to IASC a copy of the bylaws so that the Defendants could sensibly discuss ensuring a continuing bright future for IASC. 36. IASC repeatedly withheld bylaws from disclosure. 37. The Defendants most recently requested inspection of the bylaws on November 11, 2018 at a meeting with Galal, who acted on behalf of IASC. 38. At the meeting, IASC, Galal falsely outwardly agreed, concealing his true intentions. 39. IASC, through Galal, Khan and Ali, devised a scheme not only to deny the Defendants’ request over the next month or so, but set in motion a series of steps designed to ensure that exclusive control over IASC remained concentrated in 3 individuals. 40. First, on November 12, 2018, IASC’s incorporators, Galal, Khan and Ali, tendered a false resignation that conveniently was not actually going into effect until December 31, 2018, which naturally caused confusion and consternation among congregants and among the Defendants, who 19 tried to reach IASC’s putative Board for reconciliation and discussion. The Plaintiff ignored the Defendants requests to continue thoughtful discussions. 41. On November 29, 2018, IASC’s putative Board withdrew its resignations of its putative Board, Galal, Khan and Ali. 42. As a second step, on November 30, 2018, IASC sent an oblique message essentially denying that Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby and Mr. Ahmad had ever been IASC members, setting up a legal claim that they had no standing. 43. The Defendants were shocked, confused and dismayed by the sophisticated subterfuge on the part of IASC. 44. Despite disappointment and confusion, as devout and observant Muslims and who were completely unaware that IASC was setting up the third step of an ambush, the Defendants returned as usual to the Masjid simply to pray on or about December 1, 2018. 45. When they arrived to pray, the Defendants were horrified to discover that IASC had multiple police officers waiting at the Masjid for the purpose of instilling fear and to intimidate the Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby. 46. Thereafter, Defendants were informed that they were not welcome. 47. IASC locked the IASC gates and doors of the Masjid barring the Defendants from entering, which constituted expelling Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby without cause. 48. IASC communicated to the Defendants that IASC would consider them trespassers on IASC property and they would be subject to arrest and prosecution if they returned to IASC. 49. IASC by deliberate overt acts and material omissions by its putative Board, manipulated and deceived the Defendants into believing that in consideration of making payments to IASC, 20 contributing their family’s wages and savings directly to IASC’s putative Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, acting on behalf of IASC as a Board of Trustees, that the Defendants were members of IASC. 50. IASC’s deception and fraudulent misrepresentations and actions caused shock, distress and mental anguish with risk of physical harm. 51. The Defendants would not have contributed or paid money to IASC if they had not been deceived into thinking that they were members of IASC. 52. As a result of deliberate misrepresentations and deception regarding their status as members, through overt acts and material fraudulent omissions made by IASC and its putative Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, Mr. Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby and Mr. Ahmad have suffered and continued to suffer emotional loss and damage with risk of physical injury as well as significant monetary or economic losses. The Defendants have had to reinvest significant sums to reestablish a community and a masjid to continue to practice their faith and seek equitable and other relief as set forth in their prayer for relief. COUNT 2 - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 1-37. Paragraphs 1-37 of the First Count are incorporated by reference and made paragraphs 1-37 of this count as if fully set forth herein. 38. At the meeting, IASC, Galal outwardly agreed to provide a copy of the bylaws. Commented [ES2]: Incomplete … 39. In response to the Defendants’ request for a copy of the bylaws, IASC’s incorporators, Galal, Khan and Ali, tendered a resignation that would be effective on December 31, 2018, which led to great confusion and consternation among congregants and the Defendants, who tried to reconcile with IASC’s putative Board. 40. The Plaintiff ignored the Defendants efforts for reconciliation. 21 41. The Plaintiff on November 29, 2018 withdrew resignations of its putative Board, Galal, Khan and Ali. 42. The next day, on November 30, 2018, IASC sent an oblique message essentially denying that Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby and Mr. Ahmad had ever been IASC members. 43. The Defendants were shocked, confused and dismayed. 44. Thereafter, despite disappointment and confusion, as devout and observant Muslims the Defendants returned as usual to the Masjid simply to pray on or about December 1, 2018. 45. When they arrived to pray, the Defendants were horrified to find that IASC had multiple police officers waiting at the Masjid. 46. Thereafter, Defendants were informed that they were not welcome on IASC property. 47. IASC locked the IASC gates and doors of the Masjid barring the Defendants from entering. 48. IASC communicated to the Defendants that IASC would consider them trespassers on IASC property and they would be subject to arrest and prosecution if they returned to IASC. 49. IASC by its negligent acts negligently led Sheikh Ashraf Ibrahim and the Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr.Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby into believing that in consideration of making payments to IASC and contributing their family’s wages and savings directly to IASC’s putative Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, acting on behalf of IASC as a Board of Trustees, that the Defendants Mr. Elawad, Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Rekaby were members of IASC. 50. IASC’s negligent misrepresentations and actions caused shock, distress and mental anguish with risk of physical harm. 51. The Defendants would not have contributed or paid money to IASC if they had known that they were not members of IASC. 22 52. As a result of negligent misrepresentations and deception regarding their status as members, through negligent overt acts and omissions made by IASC and its putative Board, Galal, Khan and Ali, Mr. Ashraf Ibrahim, Mr. Elawad, Mr. Rekaby and Mr. Ahmad have suffered and continued to suffer emotional loss and damage as well as significant monetary or economic losses. The Defendants have had to reinvest significant sums to reestablish a community and a masjid to continue to practice their faith and seek equitable and other relief as set forth in their prayer for relief. COUNT 3 – CONVERSION / CIVIL THEFT 1-51. Paragraphs 1-51 of the First Count are incorporated by reference and hereby made paragraphs 1-51 of this count. 52. IASC wrongfully obtained financial contributions to IASC by false pretenses, deceiving the Defendants into believing that they were members who were entitled to worship at the Masjid owned by IASC and would always belong at IASC and in the organization. 53. IASC wrongfully converted the Defendants’ payments and contributions to IASC to its own use and deprived the Defendants of consideration paid, monetary payments and contributions. IASC withheld the right to membership, the right to seek sanctuary in the Masjid as a house of worship, tore the bonds that bind members of the community together and deprived the Defendant of use of IASC facilities to which they were entitled. 54. As a result of IASC’s wrongful conversion of their monetary contributions, the Defendants have suffered emotional distress, significant monetary and economic losses and incurred attorney’s fees. 23 55. The Defendants have suffered economic harm, emotional distress with risk of bodily injury, have had to reinvest significant sums to reestablish a Masjid where they could continue to observe their faith and worship and seek damages, restitution, equitable and other relief as set forth in their prayer for relief. COUNT 4 - CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“CUTPA”) 1-52. Paragraphs 1-52 of Count Two are hereby incorporated by reference and made paragraphs 1-52 of this count as if fully set forth herein. 53. The Defendants and all donors, members of the public, at all relevant times believed and trusted that they were making payments to a religious nonprofit charity abiding by the corporate laws of the State of Connecticut, the regulations of the Department of Consumer Protection, and that IASC had complied with IRS rules in obtaining nonprofit status. 54. IASC concealed from the Defendants and from the State, local government and federal government that it was operating as a business. 55. IASC withheld bylaws and amendments from the Defendants, conduct that harmed the Defendants, taxpayers, and consumers generally and was unscrupulous, unconscionable and deceptive. 56. IASC refused to disclose bylaws upon request despite a duty to do so and expelled the Defendants, causing the loss of donations, savings and wages paid to IASC and depriving them of the benefit of a Masjid, of longstanding social connection and bonds with their community, and the use of IASC facilities for Islamic prayer, family and social functions. 57. IASC was operating, per Galal, Khan and Ali, as a for-profit business engaged in trade or commerce, and admits that its congregation members are tallied up as if they are a customer base 24 from which IASC expects to derive business income and in which IASC claim a proprietary interest, all of which was unknown by the Defendants. 58. IASC’s conduct is utterly inconsistent with a nonprofit religious public charity pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 501(c)3 and is inconsistent with state statutory authority for IASC’s existence. 59. IASC operation has been and continues to be unethical, unscrupulous, harmful to taxpayers and consumers, and unconscionable. 60. IASC has been operated in the manner of a private corporation or business owned by private owners for profit. 61. At all times relevant hereto, IASC was engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110a (4). 62. The actions, omissions, evasiveness, and overall conduct of IASC constitutes unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of its trade or business, all in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§42-110a et seq. and 42-110b, in that such actions, omissions, evasiveness and conduct were and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous. 63. IASC’s conduct has been immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous and has caused ascertainable loss and substantial ascertainable monetary injury to the Defendants, donors, and the local Muslim community, and the Defendants seek relief as set forth in their prayer for relief below. COUNT 5 - UNJUST ENRICHMENT 1-52. Paragraphs 1-52 of Count 2 are hereby incorporated by reference and made paragraphs 1-52 of this count as if fully set forth herein. 53. IASC seeks to retain the value the Defendants’ payments and charitable donations 25 52. IASC has been unjustly enriched. 53. The Defendants have sustained losses, monetary damage, and emotion al distress with risk of physical harm as a result of the reliance on IASC’s representations and are entitled to recovery of money damages as set forth in their prayer for relief. COUNT 7 – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 1-51. Paragraphs 1-51 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 52. IASC intended to inflict emotional distress or that IASC knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of its conduct. 53. IASC’s conduct was intentional, extreme and outrageous. 54. IASC’s conduct caused severe emotional distress. 55. The Defendants have suffered extreme and continuing emotional distress with risk of physical harm for which IASC is liable for money damages as set forth in their prayer for relief. COUNT 8 - NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 1-51. Paragraphs 1-51 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 52. IASC’S conduct created an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress. 53. The risk of IASC’s conduct causing emotional distress was foreseeable and that IASC knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of its conduct. 54. IASC’s conduct caused severe emotional distress. 55. The Defendants have suffered extreme and continuing emotional distress with risk of physical harm for which IASC is liable for money damages as set forth in their prayer for relief. 26 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Defendants seek the following relief: 1. Money damages; 2. Restitution; 3. Punitive damages for intentional conduct, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, conversion, and violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§42-110a et seq; 4. Attorney’s fees; 5. Costs; and/or 6. Such other relief as the court deems just and proper. FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/DEFENDANTS WICC RIZWAN TARAR OSSAMA ELAWAD AHMED ABDULRAZAK ASHRAF IBRAHIM KAMAL REKABY HUSSEIN AHMAD WILLIAM COLSON KAMAL REKABY SUMERA GHAZI SAED ELAHMAD JAWAD ASHRAF KHALED OMER OSSAMA ELAWAD By:_____400893_________________ By:__________/437678/1_________ MERYL ANNE SPAT, ESQ. REFAI ARAFIN, ESQ Attorney for the Plaintiffs/Counterclaimants Law Office of Refai Arafin 41 Burr Mountain Rd. 1224 Mil St. Bldg B Torrington CT 06790 East Berlin CT 06023 Phone 203.805 8256 Refai@refinlaw.com spatfax@gmail.com 860 856 6889 27 28 CERTIFICATION On February 18, 2021, the foregoing documents was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Partiers may access this filing through the Court's electronic filing System. Attorney Refai Arefin Law Office of Refai Arefin, LLC 1224 Mill St. Bldg B East Berlin CT 06023 refai@rarefinlaw.com Jonathan A. Kaplan, Esq. Pullman and Comley LLC 90 Statehouse Square Hartford CT 06103-3702 T 860 424 4300 F 860 424 4370 By:________/04575/__________________ MERYL ANNE SPAT 29