Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC

Document 104

Filed 07/23/2004

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

THOMAS O'CONNOR, Plaintiff v. LYNNE B. PIERSON, ELLEN C. HEALY, CHRISTOPHER A. DUMAS, PATRICIA M. STRONG, CHRISTINE T. FORTUNATO, DONNA H. HEMMANN, STACEY HODGES, JOHN F. MORRIS, FREDERICK E. PETRELLI, JR., PENNY H. STANZIALE, and WETHERSFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION Defendants

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

NO.: 3:00CV339 (RNC)

JULY 22, 2004

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND MAKE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 10(e), the defendants, LYNNE B. PIERSON, ELLEN C. HEALY, CHRISTOPHER A. DUMAS, PATRICIA M. STRONG, CHRISTINE T. FORTUNATO, DONNA H. HEMMANN, STACEY HODGES, JOHN F. MORRIS, FREDERICK E. PETRELLI, JR., PENNY H. STANZIALE, and WETHERSFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, hereby move to supplement the record and make additional findings based on said items added to the record. In particular, the defendants submit the following items should be included in the record on appeal for proper consideration by the Court of Appeals: 1. 2. Letter from Attorney Michael J. Rose to Hon. Robert N. Chatigny dated October 15, 2003; State Court Complaint in O'Connor v. Wethersfield Board of Education,

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC

Document 104

Filed 07/23/2004

Page 2 of 4

CV 01-0808376-S, (J.D. of Hartford);1 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss dated August 9, 2001; Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss dated September 4, 2001; Decision dated September 25, 2001 on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss dated April 9, 2003; Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss dated May 8, 2003; Memorandum of Decision dated May 20, 20031 on Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss; Transcript, Plaintiff's Opening Argument at trial, September 10, 2003; Transcript, Plaintiff's Closing Argument at trial, September 18, 2003; and Judgment, October 31, 2003

Additionally, the defendants submit that the court should make additional factual findings based on these items, some of which were before the court at the time it issued its ruling granting the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. In particular, the letter to the Court by Attorney Rose put the court on notice that its subject matter jurisdiction was implicated by the entry of judgment in the state court case approximately three months before the Court's ruling. Specifically, the defendants seek findings that the state court action arose from a common nucleus of operative fact; that a judgment exists in that action against the defendants; that under Connecticut law, a Connecticut state court would afford preclusive effect to judgment; and under the law of Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U.S. 75 (1984), the Court was required to extend that full faith and credit to the state court judgment. Each item above supports the requested findings.

Items 2-11 on this list are all from the related state court case of O'Connor v. Wethersfield Board of Education, CV 01-0808376-S, (J.D. of Hartford). 2

1

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC

Document 104

Filed 07/23/2004

Page 3 of 4

In support of this motion, the defendants have filed a memorandum of law detailing the reasoning for the supplementation of the record and for additional findings. Each of the proposed items sought to be included in the record are annexed as Exhibits A-K. This motion is filed simultaneously with the defendants' Motion to Amend the Index to the Record on Appeal. The court should note that this matter pertains to its decision dated December 10, 2003 which has been appealed by the plaintiff. The matter is pending before the Court of Appeals and the plaintiff/appellant has filed his opening brief and joint appendix. As will be fully discussed in the memorandum of law in support of this motion, in order for the defendants/appellees to properly defend their position, they must have the above-described items included in the record on appeal. Otherwise, they will be unable to present a clear, complete and comprehensive record for consideration by the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, this motion complements the defendants' Motion to Amend the Index to the Record on Appeal and must be adjudicated along with that motion. The defendants have sought an enlargement of time in which to file their responsive brief in the Court of Appeals so that this Court may consider these motions and, if granted, allow the defendants the opportunity to present a clear, complete and comprehensive record on appeal. The undersigned has contacted the counsel for the plaintiff who indicates that he objects to this motion. WHEREFORE, the defendants pray that their Motion to Supplement the Record and for Additional Findings.

3

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC

Document 104

Filed 07/23/2004

Page 4 of 4

THE DEFENDANTS, LYNNE B. PIERSON, ELLEN C. HEALY, CHRISTOPHER A. DUMAS, PATRICIA M. STRONG, CHRISTINE T. FORTUNATO, DONNA H. HEMMANN, STACEY HODGES, JOHN F. MORRIS, FREDERICK E. PETRELLI, JR., PENNY H. STANZIALE, and WETHERSFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION

/s/John J. Radshaw, III Michael J. Rose, ct14803 John J. Radshaw III, ct19882 HOWD & LUDORF 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 (860) 249-1361 (860) 249-7665 (fax)

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent, handling charges prepaid, via US Mail, to the following counsel of record this 22nd day of July 2004. Leon M. Rosenblatt, Esquire Law Offices of Leon M. Rosenblatt 10 North Main Street, Suite 214 West Hartford, CT 06107-1988

/s/John J. Radshaw, III Michael J. Rose John J. Radshaw III

4