A Connecticut law firm will not be sanctioned for filing an allegedly fabricated product liability lawsuit against Target Corp. and the maker of an infant lounger over the death of a baby, whose death the companies say was actually caused by homicide, a Connecticut federal judge decided the same day that he trimmed most of the complaint's claims.

A series of paperless orders that hit the docket Wednesday in Connecticut federal court do not provide any reasoning for denying sanctions against Stratford-based BBB Attorneys LLC, the parents of Angelise Rodriguez and the administrator of her estate without prejudice, or fully detail the rationale for eliminating 11 of 13 claims the plaintiffs brought in November 2022.

According to sanctions motions from Target and The Boppy Co. LLC, the 4-month-old died by homicide in 2019 from blunt force trauma, and her father was later charged with manslaughter. Boppy said it contacted BBB Attorneys, threatening to seek sanctions directly, but the firm refused to withdraw the complaint, which claimed the company's lounger probably suffocated Rodriguez.

The plaintiffs challenged the autopsy report and said the manslaughter charge was eventually withdrawn. Th father, Angel Miguel Rodriguez, entered an Alford plea to a reduced charge of risk of injury to a minor, according to the plaintiffs' objections to sanctions.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Boppy announced a recall of the loungers at issue in September 2021 after receiving eight reports of infants suffocating from 2015 to 2020. A June 2023 update from the agency and the company said that "two additional infants died in Newborn Loungers that were part of an unsafe sleep environment" shortly after the recall.

In its January 2023 dismissal motion, Boppy argued that Connecticut's Product Liability Act precludes the plaintiffs' claims for loss of consortium, recklessness and unfair trade practices, and Target made a similar argument in its own motion.

The companies also noted that loss of filial consortium — or a parent's loss of a relationship with their child — is not a recognized cause of action in Connecticut. On Thursday, Target argued against allowing filial consortium claims in a separate case before the Connecticut Supreme Court, which revolves around a serious injury to a baby who was in a Graco car seat that the parents said caught fire when placed next to a stove.

Kenneth J. Krayeske of BBB Attorneys told Law360 Friday that during a Wednesday hearing, U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny allowed the product liability claims against Target and Boppy to proceed. His rulings also memorialized a decision that he made during a Feb. 22 status conference to remove the infant product supplier Artsana USA Inc., which does business as Chicco, as a defendant for lack of jurisdiction. Three of the claims that Krayeske said were dismissed were filed against Chicco.

On the topic of sanctions, he said the judge left open the possibility of revisiting the defendants' motions once discovery is complete, but "credited" the argument that the plaintiffs' counsel owes "zealous advocacy" to their clients.

"I represent the estate of a 4-month-old baby that was found suffocated on a bed next to a product that was recalled, and that is known to have suffocated at least 10 other babies," Krayeske said. "I am duty-bound to find out what happened to her."

Counsel for Target and Boppy did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Peter C. Bowman and Kenneth J. Krayeske of BBB Attorneys LLC.

Boppy is represented by Timothy R. Scannell, Kevin R. Kratzer and Walter J. Klimczak III of Boyle Shaughnessy Law PC, and Brian E. Cohen, Shari Lynn Klevens and Timothy J. Storino of Dentons.

Target is represented by Renée W. Dwyer of Conway Stoughton LLC.

The case is Scricca et al. v. Boppy Co. LLC et al., case number 3:22-cv-01497, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.