New Haven, Connecticut — In a significant legal development, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has dismissed all claims against Optic Tax, Inc. in the matter of Cleer LLC v. Stranger et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01496-MPS. The court ruled that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Optic Tax and found that Cleer LLC failed to establish any factual or legal basis for its claim that the company was the “alter ego” of its founder, Crystal Stranger.

In a move that legal observers note is relatively rare, U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea overruled a prior recommendation from the magistrate judge, concluding that Cleer’s jurisdictional theories could not withstand scrutiny, even after the company was granted jurisdictional discovery.

“Cleer has put forward no factual allegations or evidence regarding Optic Tax’s capitalization, its solvency, whether it observed corporate formalities, or whether Stranger misused Optic Tax’s funds,” Judge Shea wrote in the court’s July 29, 2025 ruling. “Cleer has failed to make a prima facie showing that the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Optic Tax.”

The court also rejected Cleer’s arguments under Connecticut’s long-arm statute, finding no evidence that Optic Tax engaged in conduct that could support jurisdiction or tie the company to the forum. The ruling lands as a direct rebuke of Cleer’s strategy, driven by high profile law firm Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, as represented by partner George B. Musekamp, which relied heavily on aggressive rhetoric, but failed to deliver any supporting evidence.

“This ruling is a clear and welcome vindication,” said Optic Tax founder and CEO Crystal Stranger. “Cleer’s claims against Optic Tax were built on speculation and rhetoric, not evidence. The court’s findings speak for themselves. Cleer’s entire theory collapsed under scrutiny, because there was never any evidence to support it.”

With this decision, Optic Tax is no longer a party to the lawsuit. The company is reviewing its legal options regarding the significant time and resources expended defending against claims that the court has now found were brought without a sufficient jurisdictional foundation.

Connecticut Federal District Court
Cleer LLC v. Stranger et al
3:24-cv-01496-MPS