A Superior Court judge has denied the request of a Connecticut restaurateur to remain in a disputed property.
Judge Cristina M. Lopez ruled against TP2B Bakery LLC, a business owned by Gina Luari, and in favor of Blue Back Capitol Partners LLC on a piece of property in West Hartford,
Luari, through her attorneys, had tried to quash a motion for execution, meaning to stop her from losing possession of the property, where she had planned to open a bakery, court records show.
Luari’s rapid expansion of her business to a half dozen restaurants in as many years, and plans for more, had run into issues, including the eviction proceeding at the site of the planned West Hartford bakery.
Messages seeking comment were sent to the attorneys representing both sides of the case.
Luari’s The Place 2 Be in Springfield at the basketball hall of fame permanently closed earlier this year, and, court documents show, the West Hartford location in Blue Back Square will shutter by the end of March. Both restaurants were beset by landlord allegations of unpaid rent and other troubles.
Court records also show at least two active pushes for eviction, also tied to alleged unpaid rent: the one for the as-yet unopened bakery in Blue Back and, the other, a seafood bar in downtown Hartford.
And last month, Luari was arrested on a felony larceny charge in East Hartford. She is accused of allegedly writing checks for more than $10,000 to a restaurant supplier on an account that was closed. She was released on a $10,000 bond, according to state records.
The latest civil court ruling says the following “facts are not in dispute”:
The two side entered into an agreement on August 25, 2025, which the Court approved the same day.
In it, Luari (the defendant) was to pay $23,916.66 on or before August 27, 2025, for September and October 2025 use and occupancy, and “payments [are to be] made payable to the plaintiff (Blue Back Capitol) by bank check and received by the above dates.”
If there were “any default in payment by the defendant, Plaintiff may file an execution.” and the defendant failed to timely make the payment due on August 27, 2025. On August 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Noncompliance attesting to Defendant’s noncompliance with the Agreement for failing to make the August 27th payment and sought an eviction
Luari failed to object to the affidavit of noncompliance or to the issuance of the execution and on September 8, 2025, the execution was issued.
“On September 9, 2025, a marshal advised the Defendant that execution (eviction) would take place on September 11, 2025,” and no application for stay of execution was filed. The execution notice of eviction took place and was returned to court.
“Thereafter, on September 19, 2025, Defendant filed an Application for Injunction alleging that the August 27th payment had been tendered but refused by the landlord. In light of the allegation of payment and the forfeiture period granted to Defendant pursuant § 47a-42a(b), the Court granted the injunction. Thereafter, on September 22, 2025, the Parties filed the Motion to Quash and Objection before the Court,” Lopez wrote.
“This is a summary process action for possession of premises. Absent allegations of misrepresentation, legal error, or wrongful dispossession, this Court finds very little support for the argument that a court could grant relief to a tenant after an execution has been satisfied,” she wrote.
In this case…”there is no allegation of impropriety – factual or legal – regarding the execution. The evidence establishes that Defendant failed to timely make the August 27th payment and that the execution properly issued and was satisfied,” Lopez wrote.
The judge also wrote that, “during the hearing, Defendant’s Counsel represented to the Court that Defendant was prepared to make the August 27, 2025, payment sometime after the execution had taken place.”
Further, Luari’s “counsel argued that Defendant had spent multiple six figures on the premises, and that the premises were almost ready to be opened making it inequitable to return the premises to Plaintiff’s possession this late in the game,” the judge wrote.
“Plaintiff’s evidence regarding the equities, on the other hand, establishes that Plaintiff has spent over six figures seeking to enforce its various agreements with the Defendant; that is unlikely, given the state of the premises, that Defendant will be able to open in approximately one month as required by the Agreement; and, that it has suffered reputational harm as a result of its ongoing issues with the Defendant,” the judge wrote.
“The court finds that the equities established by the evidence, and the record, weigh in favor of the Plaintiff,” the judge wrote, also noting, “the issue before this Court is whether it can quash a properly issued execution that has been satisfied. For the reasons set forth above, the Court holds that, on this record, it cannot quash an execution that was properly issued and satisfied. The Motion to Quash is Denied.”
Luari, who leads The Statement Group, based in Hartford, was sent a message seeking comment.
In a series of previous interviews over months with The Courant, Luari has blamed her setbacks on circumstances beyond her control: a fire and water damage at Place 2 Be on Constitution Plaza in downtown Hartford; a water pipe break at Place 2 Be in Blue Back; alleged employee embezzlement in Springfield; vandalism at seafood bar RAW* in the 280 Trumbull office tower in downtown Hartford; and supply-chain disruptions.
Luari has consistently pushed back on the notion that she expanded too quickly.
Luari opened her first restaurant on Franklin Avenue in 2015. By 2020, Luari had launched an ambitious expansion that would come to include three locations in Hartford, including two of her flagship Place 2 Be restaurants. West Hartford, New Haven and Springfield also saw Place 2 Be openings.
The city of Hartford and the Hartford Chamber of Commerce were supportive of Luari’s expansion efforts. Luari was aided by two, $150,000 Hart Lift storefront revitalization grants — one for RAW* and one for the Place 2 Be on Constitution Plaza.
A third project, a brick-oven pizzeria in Hartford’s old Pearl Street firehouse, where upper floors are being converted to apartments, also qualified for a $150,000 Hart Lift grant. But that project has not gone forward, according to the chamber. As late as June 4, however, a spokeswoman for Luari said there were still plans to move ahead with the pizzeria.
The restaurant, in a storefront of the Spectra Apartments on Constitution Plaza, had just come off a fire that closed it down for five months in 2022.
Months later, Hartford-based Lexington Partners, part owner and manager of the apartment building, and Luari settled the matter. Luari paid off the $95,000 that was due, and court documents showed that any delay in making payments could result in an immediate shutdown.
In October, 2023, Luari and an affiliate of The Statement Group, signed a lease at The Shops at Somerset Square in Glastonbury for a new Mediterranean-themed restaurant, Pita. The space was formerly occupied by Max Amore.
But according to court documents, Luari allegedly fell far behind in payment of rent and other required charges. In a court filing in early February of 2025, the owners of Somerset Square sought to recover $450,000, including a year of unpaid rent of about $234,400 and a tenant improvement allowance of about $206,300.
In the last several months, at least two of Luari’s Place 2 Be restaurants — in downtown Hartford and West Hartford — closed temporarily because they lost a valid sales tax license. One of those locations, in Blue Back Square, had just come back into compliance with local health standards after a severe infestation of cockroaches, an official confirmed.
Previous reporting by Kenneth R. Gosselin is included in this story.