Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 104-3 Filed 09/06/2005 Page 1 of 2
SILVER GOLuB & TEITELL LLP
· RICHARD A. SILVER LAW prncgs
THE HERITAGE BUILDING
PATRICIA M. HAUGH II942-IQBSI IB4 ATLANTIC STREET
JOHN D. JO$EL' L.
MARIO D|NATALE' MAIL ADDRESS
'gxfggfs Post orrncr: sox ses
FAU; A_ SLAGERO STANFORD, CONNECTICUT 06904
ANGELO A. ZIOTAS ·i——-
KATHLEEN L. BRANDT° TEL€I’N°N£
PETER MASON UREYER' (203) 325-449I
CRAIG N. YANKWITT FACSMILE
•A|.so Anmrrzn an uv t203I 325-3769
August 3, 2005
SENT VIA FACSIMILE & REGULAR MAIL
James R. Hawkins H, Esq.
Finn Dixon & Herling LLP
One Landmark Square
Stamford CT 06901
RE: GWYNN,ETALV. AIG .
OUR FILE NQ. l6,4§2
· Dear Jim:
I have had the opporttmity to review your August l letter concerning the claims of Gwynn
Financial Services, Inc. ("GFS").
I share your view that it makes sense to keep all claims, including those of GFS, before the
District Court here in Connecticut. However, as you noted, the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over GFS, and is therefore likely to grant defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
However, we continue to claim that GFS suffered damages as a result of defendants’ actions. I
cannot agree, on behalf of GFS, that it give up its right to pursue damages related to defendants’
bad faith. Accordingly, { cannot agree 1lzatGFS agree not to separately Hle suit against your
clients and be bound by any judgment in this case, as you propose, if by doing so GFS abandons
its right to damages.
One option would be for GFS to sue your clients in a separate action, most likely in the state
courts of Cormecticut, and to stay the proceeding until the federal action is resolved. I would
likely be willing to agree that any judgment in the federal action would have a res judicata effect
in state court. In that event, a judgment for defendants in the federal action would result in a
dismissal of the state court claim, while a judgment for plaintiffs in the federal action would
leave us with only a hearing in damages in the state court claim. E @ E H W E
• li" ll ll
. NB ·· 5 S
HHN DIXON &

Case 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 104-3 Filed O9/06/2005 Page 2 of 2
Su.vzR GOLwB & Tzrrart rrp
· James Hawkins, Esq.
August 3, 21005 -
Page Two
The above thoughts are merely preliminary musings on my part, and I hope that they will serve as
a basis for further discussion. I have not discussed the above with my client yet, and will likely
not do so until you and I have agreed, in principle, on what we think is the best way to proceed.
In the interilm, however, you have tiled a Motion to Dismiss that I must respond to in some
fashion. My inclination would be to request leave of the court for an additional 30 days to
respond, asiwe seek to resolve this issue. Please advise if you would consent to such a request.
Very truly yours,
/` g
Mari DiNatale
MD/sfn
cc: Peter Nolin, Esq. (via fax)