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

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC

Document 103

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.: 3:00 CV 339 (RNC)

JULY 22, 2004

MOTION TO AMEND THE INDEX TO THE RECORD ON APPEAL 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 modify the index to the record on appeal. 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. Letter from Attorney Michael J. Rose to Hon. Robert N. Chatigny dated October 15, 2003; 2. State Court Complaint in O'Connor v. Wethersfield Board of Education,

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC

Document 103

Filed 07/23/2004

Page 2 of 4

CV 01-0808376-S, (J.D. of Hartford);1 3. 4. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss dated August 9, 2001; Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss dated September 4, 2001; 5. 6. 7. 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, 2001; 8. Memorandum of Decision dated May 20, 20031 on Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss; 9. 10. 11. 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

In support of this motion, the defendants have filed a memorandum of law detailing the reasoning for the amendment of the index to the record on appeal. Each of the proposed items sought to be included in the record are annexed to the defendants' Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal and for Additional Findings. The defendants have also sought the deletion of several items from the index to the record on appeal. The plaintiff inexplicably listed every single docket entry in the index to the record on appeal. The proposed deletions clarify the issue and, if the record is ever
1

Items 2-8 on this list are all from the related state court case of O'Connor v.

2

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC

Document 103

Filed 07/23/2004

Page 3 of 4

forwarded to the Court of Appeals, they will not be in awash in pleadings unnecessary to the determination of the appeal. The proposed amended index to the record is annexed as Exhibit A hereto. This motion is filed simultaneously with the defendants' Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal and for Additional Findings. 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 index to 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 Supplement the Record on Appeal and for Additional Findings 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 court should also note that the defendants have moved for an extension of time of 120 days until November 1, 2004 in which to file their brief in opposition. This time was sought to allow the district court to consider this motion and the Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal and for Additional Findings. If the court grants the motions and makes findings, then the defendants will be able to properly discuss those

Wethersfield Board of Education, CV 01-0808376-S, (J.D. of Hartford). 3

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC

Document 103

Filed 07/23/2004

Page 4 of 4

items in their brief in opposition. 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 Amend the Index to the Record on Appeal is granted. 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