Not 2 Be: Judge Rules on Eviction of The Bakery by The Place 2 Be from Blue Back Square

Published On: October 2, 2025Categories: Blue Back Square, Business
Carbonatix Pre-Player Loader

Audio By Carbonatix

Locks were changed on the doors of The Bakery by TP2B, where signs in the window said it was "coming soon" for a very long time. Photo credit: Ronni Newton

A request by The Bakery by The Place 2 Be to continue with its plans to open in Blue Back Square has been been denied by a Superior Court judge.

By Ronni Newton

A case that began with a complaint filed by the owners of Blue Back Square against a tenant in February 2024, citing non-payment of rent when due and violation of lease terms including failure to open by the contractually-agreed date of Oct. 1, 2023, has been finally decided, with Judge Cristina M. Lopez ruling Wednesday in favor of Blue Back Capital Partners LLC (plaintiff) and denying a “Motion to Quash” filed by TP2B Bakery LLC (defendant), the business owned by Gjinovefa “Gina” Luari that was supposed to open at 69 Memorial Road in West Hartford.

The attorneys for Luari – who is CEO of The Statement Group, which owns various restaurants including The Place 2 Be as well as The Bakery by TP2B – filed the most recent motion to quash the execution order, and the denial of the defendant’s most recent motion appears to be the final step in the eviction of the bakery, which never actually opened.

A marshal had advised the defendant on Sept. 9, 2025 that the eviction would be executed on Sept. 11, and TP2B Bakery LLC did not apply for a stay of execution at that time, according to court documents. The execution was completed and filed with the court and the defendant had until Sept. 27, 2025 to claim any possessions – which had been catalogued by the marshal – or forfeit them to the landlord.

Following the eviction, the landlord removed the lockbox from the main entrance and changed the locks.

TP2B Bakery LLC been embroiled in litigation with Blue Back Square’s owners, and the online records of the case contain more than 100 entries over the past 18 months.

The Bakery initially signed the lease in 2023, with plans to open in the former SPoT Coffee space at 69 Memorial Road, and but although some progress was made on build-out of the space, Luari and her attorneys claimed, among other reasons, that the opening plans were thwarted by a variety of construction delays.

In the Oct. 1, 2025 filing, multiple “facts that are not in dispute” were cited, including that in an agreement dated Aug. 25, 2025, both the defendant (The Bakery) and plaintiff (Blue Back Square) agreed that the defendant was to pay $23,916.66 on or before Aug. 27, 2025 “for September and October 2025 use and occupancy,” and that the “payments [are to be] made payable to the plaintiff by bank check and received by the above dates.” Any default would allow the plaintiff to file an execution.

The Aug. 27 payment was not made on time, the ruling states, and on Aug. 28 the plaintiff filed an affidavit of noncompliance as well as an execution. According to online documents, Luari’s attorneys did not file any objection to the affidavit of noncompliance or the execution – which was issued on Sept. 8, 2025.

Lopez’s ruling states: “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.”

The summary process action for possession of the premises had been satisfied, and Lopez stated in the Oct. 1, 2025 document that “[a]bsent allegations of misrepresentation, legal error, or wrongful dispossession” there is very little support to grant relief, and in this case she stated that there was “no allegation of impropriety – factual or legal – regarding the execution” and according to evidence, the Aug. 27 payment was not made as required and the execution was properly issued and satisfied.

The judge stated in her ruling that the defendant “makes an equitable argument” in stating that Luari “was prepared to make the August 27, 2025, payment sometime after the execution had taken place.” Luari’s attorneys also stated that “multiple six figures” had been spent on the premises” which were “almost ready to be opened making it inequitable to return the premises to Plaintiff’s possession this late in the game.” The ruling did not mention that the Aug. 27 payment, which was made 14 days late, was also not made by a bank check as required but rather a third-party check drawn on account that had been closed – which the plaintiff knew because it was from the same account used in another case involving the same landlord, where a check from that account was “dishonored and returned on September 17, 2025 because the account had been closed” another online court document indicates.

The plaintiff also presented evidence that they have spent more than six figures “seeking to enforce its various agreements with the Defendant” and that it would have been unlikely that “given the state of the premises, that Defendant will be able to open in approximately one month as required by the Agreement,” the ruling states. The defendant also argued that “it has suffered reputational harm as a result of its ongoing issues with the Defendant,” and no evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s testimony was presented, the judge wrote.

There were at least seven affidavits of non-compliance with payment obligations filed by the plaintiff, and Lopez wrote that the “court finds that the equities established by the evidence, and the record, weigh in favor of the Plaintiff.”

In the denial of the Motion to Quash, Lopez wrote: “Ultimately 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.”

Blue Back Square has not yet responded to a request for a statement regarding the final decision, or regarding the next step for the 69 Memorial Road space.

Luari also did not respond to a request via text from We-Ha.com for comment regarding the eviction of The Bakery by TP2B.

This is not the first recent brush with the legal system or regulatory agencies for Luari related to her restaurant businesses. The Place 2 Be at 50 Memorial Road in West Hartford’s Blue Back Square currently remains open for business, but was closed several times over the summer – initially by the West Hartford-Bloomfield Health District due to violations including a “severe cockroach infestation” and then after the sales and use tax permit was suspended by the Department of Revenue Services.

The Place 2 Be has also been embroiled in litigation with its West Hartford landlord, Blue Back Capital Partners LLC, regarding payment of rent as well as the two closings of the business which the landlord stated were in violation of lease terms. The most recent action, dated Aug. 4, 2025 and agreed to through mediation, is a Final Stay of Execution through March 31, 2026, provided on-time payment of an agreed-to sum for use and occupancy of the premises is made via wire transfer. The agreement states that if payments are not made as specified, the landlord is permitted to file an affidavit “requesting an execution without additional court hearings.”

The Place 2 Be at 50 Memorial Road in West Hartford’s Blue Back Square was back open as of Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2025. Photo credit: Ronni Newton (we-ha.com file photo)

On Sept. 17, Luari was also arrested via warrant on charges related to check fraud. She was accused of paying Restaurant Supply Paradise in East Hartford with two checks written from a closed bank account – one check was for $2,620.46 and the other was for $8,201.20. The owner of the restaurant supply company said it was “approximately the fifth time” they had received a bad check from Luari, and unlike in past instances where she had always resolved the issue within a few weeks, that did not happen and he ultimately filed a complaint with police.

Luari was released after posting $10,000 bond and is due back in court on Oct. 22 to face charges of second-degree larceny and issuing a bad check of more than $2,000.

Like what you see here? Click here to subscribe to We-Ha’s newsletter so you’ll always be in the know about what’s happening in West Hartford! Click the blue button below to become a supporter of We-Ha.com and our efforts to continue producing quality journalism.

Leave A Comment