Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

_ . Case 3:00-cv-00650-CFD Document 1 19 Filed 1 1/1 /2004 Page 1 of 3
Zllllll NUV IB P |2¤ Lil
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU '*·l A -
Fon THE I>IsTIzIcT or coNNEcTI-il ln;-, E->i_§I.llll§l CQURT
-i I I-- til.--IJ. C I.

CONSTITUTION STATE CHALLENGE, INC. and )
NORTHEASTERN OPEN INVITATIONAL, INC. ) CI IL ACTION NO.:
I I
Plaintiffs ) 3: I CV 650 (CFD)
)
V- )
)
JOHN NYEMCHEK and )
CATHI NYEMCI-IEK, ) November 18, 2004
)
Defendants ) ,

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO MAGISTRATE’S RECOMMEND D RULING ON PLAINITFFS’
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT A EEMENT
Constitution State Challenge, Inc. and Northeastern Open vitational, Inc., Plaintiffs in the
above matter, submit the following response to the Court’s Recomme ¤• ed Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Enforce Settlement Agreement received by Plaintiffs’ counsel on vember 9, 2004:
l. Plaintiffs request that the Court treat this pleading as a quest to review and amend the p
Court’s recommended ruling. Plaintiffs make no requ t for oral argument or submission l
l
of testimony on the matters discussed herein. l
l
2. Plaintiffs are in accord with the Court’s recommended IIN ling regarding imposition of a l
$10,000.00 penalty, regarding imposition of atto1·ney’s ees and costs in the amount of
$955.20 and regarding that Defendants cancel thier d e competition scheduled for June
i

. Case 3:00-cv-00650-CFD Document 119 Filed 11/1 /2004 Page 2 of 3
5, 2005 and publicly withdraw and rescind all notices, - • vertisements and publicity
associated therewith.
3. Plaintiffs note the Court’s rejection of Plaintiffs’ reco Il ended order that the time period
. Il .
on all prohibitions set forth in the Settlement Agreeme 4 be extended for a period of one
year.
4. In lieu of extending for one year the time period on all It rohibitions set forth in the
. . l .
Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff; request that the Co ll ake the following order:
. . a . l _ _
Until such time as all orders entered herein for ai onetary relief are satisfied
. . . l . . .
Defendants will not own, organize, permit othe to organize in their names, or
l
lead people to believe that they own or have or gi nized any dance competitions,
sanctioned or unsanctioned, in New York, Ne ·iJersey, Connecticut or
Massachusetts. i ·
5. Plaintiffs request that the Court expand its ruling to cl . it fy the distinction between
sanctioned competitions and unsanctioned competition to wit:
. .. Il .. .
A sanctioned competition shall be defined as a •·-•mpet1t1on sanctioned by the
National Dance Council of America (NDCA). ,
Plaintiffs submit that this definition fully comports wi the intent of the Parties during
. . ll . . . .
the December 1, 2003 settlement negotiation. In supp of this assertion Plaintiffs note
. . ll .
that throughout the entire December l, 2003 session th =·i e was never any mention,
l
whatsoever, of any sanctioning body other than the N D i A.
C:\taraleondrive\civil‘·.Cote\responsetoMotiontoenforce.doc
l i

1
" Case 3:00-cv-00650-CFD Document 119 Filed 11/1 /2004 Page 3 of 3
l i
1 1
Dated at Hartford, CT this 18th day of November, 2004. 1
1
I 1
1>1.A1NT1FFs 1
BY THEIR ATTORNE .‘
1
Leon M. Kaatz *
lll Oak Street I I
Hartford, CT 06106
(8160) 247-5640
Federal Bar No. 00037
1
l
oRDER
The foregoing motion having been heard by the Court it is her=- y ordered:
GRANTED/DENIED.
THE COURT
By= _
Judge/Clerk 1
E
1
ELTIFICATION i i
I hereby certify that a oopy of the foregoing has been mailed class mail, postage prepaid to
Defendants John and Cathi Nyemchek, 970 Til1;on Road; Valley Cott e, NY 10989 and to Attorney
John Linderman, McCormick Paulding & Huber LLP, 185 Asylum S all Hartford, CT 06103 on or
before the 18th day of November, 2004. r I
LK.·4~` (Y\ —·
Leon M. Kaa E E 1
Commissione p f the Superior Court
3
C1\taraleondrive\civil\C_ote\responsetoMotiont0enforce.doc 1