Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00674-WWE

Document 25

Filed 09/30/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ---------------------------------------------------------------RICHARD SCHIRILLO, AUGUSTO CORREIA: And RANDOLPH BOND : : v. : : TOWN OF STRATFORD and in their : Individual capacities EILEEN MURPHY, : MICHAEL FEENEY, DORINDA BORER, : MARK BARNHART, JACK OBERNESSER, : MICHAEL SINGH, and SANDRA ZALIK : ----------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Action No. 303cv674 (WWE)

September 30, 2004

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants, Town of Stratford, Eileen Murphy, Michael Feeney, Dorinda Borer, and Mark Barnhart and Jack Obernesser, respectfully move for summary judgment on the following grounds: Section 1983 Claim 1. No genuine of material fact exists as to whether the individual defendants

personally participated in the alleged deprivation; 2. As a matter of law, the plaintiffs' contractual right did not rise to the level

of being a property right protected by the Due Process Clause; 3. As a matter of law, the grievance and arbitration procedures of the

collective bargaining agreements satisfied due process; 4. law; The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of

18000\272\mol revised

Case 3:03-cv-00674-WWE

Document 25

Filed 09/30/2004

Page 2 of 3

5.

There is no genuine material issue as to the fact that plaintiff Bond

received all of the benefits through the workers' compensations commission and his disability retirement that he would have been entitled to under the collective bargaining agreement; 6. remedies; 7. There is no genuine of material fact as to whether the defendants violated Plaintiffs Schirillo and Brenton failed to exhaust their administrative

the plaintiffs' rights to substantive due process. Claim for Violation of due process under the Connecticut Constitution 1. No genuine of material fact exists as to whether the individual defendants

personally participated in the alleged deprivation; 2. As a matter of law, the plaintiffs' contractual right did not rise to the level

of being a property right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Connecticut Constitution; 3. As a matter of law, the grievance and arbitration procedures of the

collective bargaining agreements satisfied due process. Breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement 1. The prior arbitration award bars plaintiffs Bond and Correa from bringing

breach of contract claims in court. 2. As a matter of law, the plaintiffs Schirillo and Brenton are foreclosed from

bringing a breach of contract claim because they failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

18000\272\mol revised

Case 3:03-cv-00674-WWE

Document 25

Filed 09/30/2004

Page 3 of 3

Breach of Implied Covenants and Fair Dealing 1. The defendants are entitled to summary on this state law claim for the

same reasons that they are entitled to summary judgment under breach of contract claims. The reasons for this motion are more fully set forth in the memorandum of law, affidavits, exhibits and deposition excerpts filed concurrently in support of this motion for summary judgment.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Moving Defendants

By:____//s//_______________________ Richard J. Buturla, Esq. Federal Bar No. ct 05967 Warren L. Holcomb, Esq Federal Bar No. ct 13127. Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C. 75 Broad Street Milford, CT 06460 (203) 783-1200 e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

18000\272\mol revised