Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 67.6 kB
Pages: 1
Date: January 30, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 367 Words, 2,330 Characters
Page Size: 612.48 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/9088/150.pdf

Download Order - District Court of Connecticut ( 67.6 kB)


Preview Order - District Court of Connecticut
KROKIDAS 8¢ BLUESTEIN
· ATTORNEYS A
Ricunn M. Bnuasrsm ° I-Iucu Dun RA1;i;Xiioivr.
I)/IARIALKROKIDAS _ ' 0 ATLANTIQ AVENUE juua I-Iunssr Punoov
SAMUEL NAGLBR 2 5 AB§S·1i%, MASSACHUSETTS 022IO EMILY R. DAUGHTBRS
JANET STECKBL LUNDBBRG PHONE 617,482.72]:1 • FAX 617.482,72]:2 AARONLIVIANG0
ROBERT J. GRIFFIN vi
V ],P _ 4, ` J ;_ EuzAs¤·r1»r C. Ross
I;»l1;{o1.·;;I,?;: Lmm Bossa
Arrruowvj. Cxcn-1121.1.0 J A i BARBARA SPARKBR
JENNIFER GALLOP OF C0UN$B|·
Eum TZ SAc1~1s -
January 23, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE (860-240-3211)
AND REGULAR MAIL
The Honorable Christopher Droney
A United States District Court
.6 District of Connecticut
§ 450 Main Street
E Hartford, CT 06103
63 I · Re: i John Cox, Executive Director New Haven Commission on Egual ‘ J
_ D Opportunities v. Edward L. Bland, et al. v. Beacon Corcoran et al.
§ Civil Action No. 3:00 CV 00311 (CFD)- Joint Report of the Parties
as
"‘ Dear Judge Droney:
ui
To
5. I represent Third Party Defendant Beacon/Corcoran Partners LLC ("BCJ"). However, I
*5] have been delegated, with the approval of all parties to this action, to report to the Court the
'Q §tatus of the parties’ attempts to settle this matter and to suggest a procedure for going forward
’° ghat has the agreement of all parties.
8 u U A`)? A A i
g · E Asgiou know, when the parties to this action last met with you, the parties indicated that I
Q 8 talliwere a%ieabi¢;t¤=the dismissal of all claims in this action, except that Stamford Wrecking
PS cf Ejigggibany 'shetiitopursue its state law claims against BCJ. At this Court’s direction, the parties
é ¤=· $l'§1}lHttCH‘1g§§Cd todraft a stipulation of dismissal that would reflect these understandings. After
"" *,3 fécgveral attzernpts andmany discussions, the parties were unable to do so. In summary, because of ‘
'§ '§. cliltéunusualiiprocedural posture of this case (which was mediated prior to BCJ answering), BCJ
5: jj 313 not ye§.§fiad the opportunity to answer and/or file counterclaims or cross claims. ”While BCJ is
gp H },Z{x@ing to proceed on the basis of dismissing all claims except Stamford’s state law claims, BCJ
_ A 1As sc Biuusrmw LLP