Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 110 Filed O9/23/2005 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
1
BRUCE CHARLES RYAN, RUSSELL WILLIAM )
NEWTON, ROBERT FITZPATRICK, and MERIT ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
CAPITOL ASSOCIATES, INC. ) 3:03 CV 00644 (CFD)
Plaintiffs, )
) .
) r.
vs. )
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., )
Defendants )
li DAVID W. GWYNN, RAQUEL GWYNN AND )
/ GWYNN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiffs ) 3:03 CV 01154 (CFD)
)
vs. )
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., and )
AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, H\lC., )
Defendants )
SEPTEMBER 23, 2005
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY MEMORANDUM IN
EXCESS OF 10 PAGES
Plaintiffs, David Gwynn, Raquel Gwynn and Gwynn Financial Services, Inc. ("GFS")
(collectively, the Gw plaintiffs) respectfully move this court for leave to file a memorandum
of law in excess of 10 pages in opposition to the defendants} September 6, 2005 Memorandum in
Opposition to various jurisdictional motions.

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 1 10 Filed O9/23/2005 Page 2 of 4
Plaintiffs assert the following in support of this Motion:
l. On September 6, 2005, defendants tiled a Memorandum of Law in Opposition
("defendants’ memorandum") to various motions addressed to the subject matter jurisdiction of
this Court, as more fully described therein.
2. The Qym; plaintiffs and defendants differ with respect to the question of whether any V
responsive memorandum to be tiled by the plaintiffs in opposition to defendants’ motion
should be deemed a Memorandum in Opposition or a Reply Memorandum.
3. lf the responsive memorandum is deemed to be considered a Reply Memorandum, it is
yyéy limited to l0 pages in length, pursuant to Local Rule 7(d).
4. Defendants’ Memorandum raises issues of law not previously addressed by plaintiffs,
including the question of whether GFS is an "indispensable party" to this action, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. l9(b).
5. It would be extremely difficult for plaintiffs, and thus prejudicial, to be limited to a 10
page limit in responding to the issues raised in defendants’ memorandum.
6. Accordingly, the Qyyyrm plaintiffs respectfully request leave to tile a responsive
memorandum of 20 pages in length, even if the court ultimately deems said memorandum to be a
“reply" memorandum.
7. Plaintiffs’ counsel has communicated with counsel to the defendants, who has no
objection to this request.
2

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 1 10 Filed O9/23/2005 Page 3 of 4
8. Plaintiffs’ counsel has also communicated with counsel to co-plaintiffs, who also has
no objection to this request. 2)
PLAINTIFFS, DAVID GWYNN, RAQUEL
GWYNN AND GWYNN FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC. ·
{/Vx
By________....__....._.
Mario DiNatale (ct 12449)
Jonathan M. Levine (ct 07584)
Silver Golub & Teitell, LLP
184 Atlantic Street
I A Stamford, CT 06904
ff (203) 325-4491
1 (203) 325·3'/69 (Fax)
Email: MDinatale(éDs .lLcvine(q»sg tlaw.coin
3

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 1 10 Filed O9/23/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was sent via facsimile land U.S. mail,
postage prepaid on this 23'd day of September, 2005, to:
James R. Hawkins, II, Esq.
Finn Dixon & Herling LLP ‘
One Landmark Square
Stamford CT 06901
Peter M. Nolin, Esq.
Sandak Hennessey & Greco LLP
707 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06905
if MARIO DiNATALE
4