Free Letter - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

~——~—~——e~»—»———
N Case 3:00-cv-OO3116C)FD Document 149 Filed O1!25[2006 ge 1£23
. ~‘ t (J 2/ p ai
i
‘ _ U J . ` .4.-»-· i
KRO KI DAS & BLUESTE N
$:2; {Q Q Ei \/ Arronnsrs I
Ric}-man M. BLUBSTEIN QQ? E HUGH DUN RAPPAPORT
i Mama j. Knoruoas I O ATLANTIC J H P
SAMUEL NAGLBR 2 5 MAssA(;Hu‘;`é·$·:;J;g;;g i USi:1LvB;iaDl'Au;;r;;;;
{;:;BTR.i'§“g*;i:F];·:N¤B¤RG [(;?·gNE 6r·y»489,-79,11 • pax 617-482,.yz; , AARONLMANGG
i Vmcswr j. Prssum SW2, U; QNEY Euzassrt-t C. Ross
1 PAUL V H¤¤¤M·~~ " gr- ti; ; sx ‘:·ii-1‘;e;·i .F`ts‘¥5.¤G¤E J rim R. som
AN·rt-roNr Crcmu.1.o S " ` i Ban ana S. Paiucsn
` JENNIFER GAL1. OF C0 NSBL
i Bum T. Sacusm, U
i
i January 23, 2006
i ‘ _
i •·;•¤¤* i
i i
l l 5
i
i VIA FACSIMILE (860-240-3211) `
i ______ AND REGULAR MAIL E
Q The Honorable Christopher Droney `
United States District Court E
Tg District of Connecticut ‘ {
{ § % 450 Main Street g
l *3 Hartford, CT 06103 -
3 0 J 6 r I
r? · Re: John Cox Executive Director New Haven Com ission on E • ual
_ Oi • ortunities v. Edward L. Bland etal. v. Beac C n Corcoran et al.
Q E Civil Action No. 3:00 CV 00311 (CFD)- Joint R port of the Parties p
· .|J Q i
tl) :
I "‘ Dear Judge Droney: = i
rn ,
.H l
5 Irepresent Third Party Defendant Beacon/Corcoran Partne 2 LLC ("BCJ"). However, I
E qhave been delegated, with the approval of all parties to this action, o report to the Court the
g gtatus ofthe parties’ attempts to settle this matter and to suggest a rocedure for going forward I
'U ghat has the agreement of all parties. ‘
O C=.i - s ·
*-’ 4* . _ 2
E § Asyou lgnow, when the parties to this action last met with ou, the parties indicated that i
E *3 DB *,jnl¥I.w`ere aieeable tothe dismissal of all claims in this action, exce t that Stamford Wrecking
l Ti _ Cj Eiiginpany ’ished to pursue its state law claims against BCJ. At th` Court’s direction, the parties
‘?; ; Fs ghen attemfpted to draft a stipulation of dismissal that would reflect hese understandings. After Q
"' it $ev·eral attempts and many discussions, the parties were unable to • 0 so. In summary, because of `
ifi: '§. Exligunusualfprocedural posture of this case (which was mediated p `or to BCJ answering), BCJ
l ig gig not yetfhad the opportunity to answer and/or tile counterclaims or cross claims. While BCJ is
E ,1, H jiwming to proceed on the basis of dismissing all claims except St i ford’s state law claims, BCJ p
` i
I i
E
i KROKIDAS 86 BLUESTEIN LLP _
l I .· ·· - - ---..._______..
_ _ n A! _ n n n .·''"`‘‘··--..__

l i
i ·_ Case 3:00-cv-0031{—%FD Document 149 Filed 01 355006 Page 2 of 3 i
i __ ` ' l_ I
Kaoxrms Bc arussrsrn rrp ` j
i The Honorable Christopher Droney i
January 23, 2006 ‘ `
Page 2 J
must preserve the right to file claims against the Housing Authorit to recover any judgment
rendered against BC] on Stamford’s state law claims, and the Housgng Authority, likewise, i
wishes to preserve the same rights as against HUD. If such claims i ere filed, the Housing ,
Authority and HUD would be brought back into the case with resp ict to recovery on the state law '
claims. HUD was unwilling to agree to the preservation of such ri ` ts in connection with the I
dismissal of the federal claims against it. T `
As a result of these discussions, it is clear that the sustainab lity of Stamford’s state law i
claims is a significant issue in the settlement of this case. BC] had i lready filed a motion to J
dismiss Stamford’s state law claims which is fully briefed by all rel` vant parties as part of its {
overall motion to dismiss all of Stamford’s claims (which this Cou previously denied without
prejudice to renewal should ongoing settlement negotiations prove _ itless). Therefore, the I
parties are in agreement to recommend that this Court should set a earing on the following: that i
portion of BC] ’s previously tiled motion to dismiss that addresses tamford Counts H and III. i
Once the Court hears and rules upon this partial motion to ismiss the parties agree that
the following would occur:
l
(i) if BCJ prevails on the motion to dismiss (subject to I tamford’s right to appeal), y
the remaining claims in the case would be dismissed in toto by stipulation of the
parties; and
(ii) if Stamford prevails on the motion to dismiss, BC] ill answer with respect to
Stamford’s state law claims, BCJ and the Housing uthority will file such - l
counterclaims or cross claims as they deem appropri te with respect to Stamford’s I
state law claims, and all remaining claims in the cas would be dismissed by i
stipulation of the parties.
l
This agreed to procedure is, we believe, the most efficient `ay of proceeding and avoids {
forcing litigation on claims all parties agree may be dismissed, whil preserving the rights of the
parties which would remain in the litigation. lf this Court approves this procedure and sets a
hearing date for BCJ’s motion to dismiss the state law claims, BC] ill renew its motion in this
respect, and BC] and Stamford will make filings that direct the Co to the appropriate portions
of previously filed motion papers.
l

1 I ` l- _"""—`l
Case 3:00-cv-00315CFD Document 149 Filed O1 25/%OO6 Page 3 of 3
: » " J ‘
i KROKIDAS dc BLUESTEIN LLP _
l
i r t
The Honorable Christopher Droney _
\ January 23, 2006
Page 3
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We will contac your office shortly to
determine whether you still wish us to appear at the conference sch duled for January 26, 2006.
If so, we will, of course, respond to any questions or concerns you ave about the procedure i
suggested in this letter. I sign below on behalf of all other counsel n this matter: David Metzger
(Stamford), Christopher Brigham (Housing Authority); Christine S. iarrino (HLD) and Evans
Jacobs (CEO). ` V
Very tmly yours, J
Janet Steckel Lundber /
J SL/mlf {Aw . g
cc: James J. Perito, Esq.
Christine L. Sciarrino, Esq.
Christopher Brigham, Esq.
Evans Jacobs, Esq.
David L. Metzger, Esq.
isvvxoooixissvimi i
l
. l
J i
J