Eric Reichbart pleaded guilty to larceny in July 2026. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail for taking deposits from grieving families and delivering nothing. The criminal case is over.
The civil case is a different story.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Spartan Stone and Monuments LLC, Eric Reichbart, and Joseph Reichbart on September 17, 2025. The lawsuit was filed under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. It seeks civil penalties, restitution, and a court order barring the defendants from future violations.
Nearly eleven months later, the case has reached the Hearings in Damages trial list. All three defendants have refused to participate. None has filed an appearance, an answer, or any motion.
The next court date is a status conference on August 19, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Hartford.
What a "strategic default" looks like
In civil litigation, a defendant who ignores a lawsuit does not stop the case. The plaintiff proceeds without them. The court can enter a default, which means the defendant admits liability by failing to respond. The case then moves to a damages hearing, where the judge decides how much the defendant owes.
Spartan Stone and Monuments LLC reached that point on June 8, 2026, when the clerk entered a default for failure to appear against the company. Eric Reichbart and Joseph Reichbart have not been defaulted individually. The procedural history explains why.
Eleven months of procedural obstacles
The attorney general's office did not sail into a default judgment. The docket, verified through the Connecticut Judicial Branch civil case lookup portal on August 6, 2026, shows twenty entries of motions, orders, amended summonses, and returns of service.
The first Motion for Default was filed on October 28, 2025. It was denied by the clerk on November 5. The second Motion for Default, filed December 3, 2025, was denied by Judge Matthew Gordon on December 10. Both denials stemmed from service of process problems. The state could not prove that the defendants had been properly served with the lawsuit.
Between September 2025 and April 2026, the AG's office filed four amended writs and summonses and three supplemental returns of service. The office filed a Motion to Amend the Summons and Complaint in January 2026. Judge Lisa Morgan denied it on February 5, 2026.
The AG then filed a Motion to Cite Additional Party to bring Joseph Reichbart into the case as a third defendant. Judge Gordon granted it on March 10, 2026. A supplemental return of service for Joseph Reichbart was filed on April 10. An amended complaint followed the same day.
On May 1, 2026, the AG filed a third Motion for Default. This time, it was narrowly targeted: default against Spartan Stone and Monuments LLC only. The clerk entered the default on June 8.
On August 5, 2026, the AG filed a Certificate of Closed Pleadings and Claim for Trial List. Judge Morgan granted the caseflow request the same day. The case was placed on the Hearings in Damages trial list.
By the Numbers
Why this is not "nobody cares"
The docket tells a story of a prosecutor's office working through a procedural maze. Every time the AG filed a motion, the court required proper service. Every time service was challenged or incomplete, the AG had to re-serve, re-amend, and re-file.
This pattern is common in civil consumer protection cases where defendants avoid service. The state has kept filing. The defendants have made participation as difficult as possible by simply refusing to engage.
In a criminal case, the defendant is arrested and brought before the court. In a civil case, the plaintiff must serve the defendant with a summons and complaint. If the defendant avoids service, the plaintiff must find alternative methods: service by publication, service at a new address, or motions to amend the summons to correct technical defects. Each method requires court approval.
The AG's office did all of this. The three denied motions, the four amended summonses, and the eleven-month timeline reflect a defendant who did not make himself available and a prosecutor who refused to drop the case.
What happens on August 19
The August 19 event is a status conference. It is not the damages hearing itself. In Connecticut civil procedure, a status conference is a scheduling meeting where the court and the parties discuss next steps. With no defendants participating, the conference will likely address the timeline for the damages hearing and whether the AG has sufficient evidence to proceed.
At a Hearings in Damages proceeding, the judge hears evidence from the plaintiff about the amount of harm caused. The AG's office will present documentation of the fraud: deposits collected, headstones not delivered, number of affected families, and the total dollar amount. Because the defendants have not appeared, there is no one to cross-examine the state's evidence or present a defense.
The judge will then determine the amount of damages, civil penalties, and any restitution order.
The regulatory gap remains
The original criminal sentencing drew criticism from families who lost money. Thirty days in jail for three years of theft struck many as lenient. The civil case is the remaining avenue for accountability.
But the underlying problem has not changed since Obitley first reported this case in July. Spartan Stone and Monument was a standalone monument dealer. It sold headstones. It did not provide funeral services. The FTC Funeral Rule does not cover standalone monument dealers. No state requires monument dealers to hold a license. No state requires upfront deposits to be placed in escrow.
Connecticut is the only state with a funeral fraud victim compensation fund. Governor Ned Lamont signed HB-5381 in May 2026, but the fund covers only prepaid funeral service contracts. It does not cover standalone monument purchases.
The families who paid Spartan Stone for headstones are not eligible.
What This Means for You
*Sources: Connecticut Judicial Branch Civil Case Lookup, docket HHD-CV25-6211139-S, case history verified August 6, 2026 (civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov); Obitley prior reporting, "30 Days for Three Years of Theft," July 20, 2026; WTNH News 8 investigative reporting, Ellie Sennhenn and Jeff Derderian, 2025-2026; Connecticut HB-5381 (Public Act, signed May 19, 2026).*
*Note: This article reflects the civil case docket as of August 6, 2026. The status conference on August 19 may result in a scheduling order for the damages hearing. This article will be updated after that conference.*
Get investigations like this in your inbox
Free. Every Tuesday.