Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

!—-———~ -·~—·-———···-----·~
I Case 3:03-cv-OO712-W&E Document 17 Filed 1 1/13/2003 Page 1 of 4
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i jtii gi] lm
W DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
GERTRUDE BAYONNE, :
Plaintiff,
: Civ. Action No. _
3:03CV0712(WWE) I
v. : I
I
PITNEY BOWES, INC., :
Defendant. NOVEMBER 12, 2003 I
PLAINTIFF’S REVISED MOTION TO FILE A I
PROPOSED REVISED AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO ,
FILE A REPLY BRIEF TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS, NUNC PRO TUNC. j
Plaintiff Gertrude Bayonne hereby respectfully requests permission to tile a
proposed revised Amended Complaint, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. (Exhibit A Attached
herein: Proposed Revised Amended Complaint dated November 12, 2003). On I
September 17, 2003, Plaintiff filed her original motion to amended the complaint. H
Plaintiff s Amended Complaint asserted claims under the Employee Retirement Income I
I
Security Act ("ERISA"). On October 14, 2003, the Defendant Pitney Bowes, Inc. filed I
objections to such motion. On this date, Plaintiff tiled a memorandum in response to
Defendant’s objections, nunc pro tunc. Plaintiff mistakenly believed she had twenty—one
I
days in which to tile a memorandum in opposition. On November 6, 2003, Plaintiff I
attempted to obtain Defendant’s consent to a l0 day extension to file a reply brief,
however, prior to filing the motion for extension, the undersigned was contacted by the j
Court notified of the mistake in the deadline. Local Civil Rule 9(g) required Plaintiff to
I
I
iL;_>;i-;;r-LLL;-7-7-7
_;;rL;_r;;--;`;Â¥-7-7-7-7

Case 3:03-cv-00712-V@E Document 17 Filed 11/13/@3 Page 2 of 4
l
tile such pleading within 10 days of the Defendant’s objections. Plaintiff respectfully
l _ requests permission to file her reply brief nunc pro tune. Due to the voluminous
i objections raised by Defendant’s objections, three of which fell under Fed.R.Civ.P.
I l2(b)(6), Plaintiff respectfully requests permission to file a memorandum of law
{ exceeding the 10 page limit pursuant to Local Civil Rule 9(g).
A _ Local Civil Rule 11(b)(2) provides “[t]he good cause standard requires a
particularized showing that the schedule cannot reasonably be met, despite the diligence
of the party seeking the modification, for reasons that were not reasonably foreseeable
when the parties submitted their proposed case management plan." i
The proposed revised Amended Complaint seeks to cure inadvertent defects in the
original proposed amended complaint tiled on September 17, 2003. In addition, the
Plaintiff also seeks to name the Pitney Bowes LTD Plan Administrator the Employee
Benefits Committee and the Pitney Bowes Disability Department as additional
defendants to this action. Plaintiff also seeks to add two retaliation claims pursuant to the
Americans With Disabilities Act and Connecticut’s Fair Employment Practices Act.
Plaintiff asserts that good cause exist for granting the revised motion to amend the
complaint. Plaintiff refers the Court to her good cause arguments set forth in her
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Objections to her original motion to amend,
and incorporated the same herein. j
Currently pending before this Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which was
responded to on August 18, 2003 and Defendant’s October 14, 2003 Objections to
Plaintiffs original Motion to Amend the Complaint. l
2 l
l
l

l Case 3:03-cv-00712-VENUE Document 17 Filed 11/13/@3 Page 3 of 4
( Counsel for Plaintiff contacted counsel for the Defendant on August 12, 2003,
2003, who withheld consent to the original motion to amend. On November 6, 2003, the
N Court notified the undersigned requesting a reply brief be filed to the Defendant’s
I objections. The undersigned indicated he would be filing the reply brief nunc pro tunc.
R Counsel for the Defendant was contacted on November 6, 2003 and did not object to the _
a
‘ filing of the reply brief nunc pro tunc. `
This is Plaintiff’s second request to tile an amended complaint. (
Dated: Southport, CT PLAINTIFF, ;
November 12, 2003 GERTRUDE BAYONNE H
B · a 1- l
" Mark P. Carey (ct 8)
Carey & Associa s, P.C.
Attorneys At Law
71 Old Post Road, Suite One 2
Southport, CT 06490
(203) 255-4150 tel. l
(203) 255-0380 fax. l
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that the foregoing was delivered via first class mail,
postage prepaid, this the 12th day of November, 2003 to:
Marc L. Zaken I
Edwards & Angell, LLC i
Three Stamford Plaza .
. 301 Tresser Boulevard ;
3
l
21 E

1 e `
1 I
1 Case 3:03-cv-00712-\/YW; Document 17 Filed 11/13/ 3 Page 4 of 4
1 1
1 Stamford, CT 06901
1 1
1 Attorney for Defendant Pitney Bowes
1 / Mar; P. C T5
1
a
1 1 1
\ 1
1 1
|
1
1