Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

l
Case 3:03-cv-00636-J BA Document 54 Filed 06/01 /2004 Page 1 of 3 l
. · [Y) 3 yp O I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT °B‘—l
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT lllll __ E
. r 9; t‘E."l"l*’·ll¥i` Cwlii ·
EVELINE GOINS : CIVIL N©li· C Q N hi T
: 3:03 CV 636 (JBA)
Z
vs. :
JBC & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
JACK H. BOYAJIAN :
MARVIN BRANDON : MAY 31, 2004
l
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE

The plaintiff` s statement under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)(l) thereto are filled
with matter which is irrelevant and immaterial to the liability issues presented the plaintiff` s

motion, and attachments which are unsworn, unauthenticated hearsay or otheruiise not presented

in admissible form as required by the Federal Rules.
Federal Rule 56(e) provides:
l
Sup orting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal iowledge, shall
P
set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shal show ]
affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matter stated therein.
The Rule sets forth a standard that statements and documents supportin a motion for
summary judgment be admissible. E.g. Yeatman v. Ireland Pro ert Mana em nt Inc. 845 F.
Supp. 625 (N.D. Ill. 1994). Unauthenticated documents may not be relied upori. E.g. i
l l
Countryside Oil Co., Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 928 F. Supp. 474 (D. N.] 1995). In- Q
admissible hearsay may not be used. E. g. Buttice v. G.D. Searle & Co., 938 F. iSupp. 561 (E.D.
l
M0. 1996). l
JBC8777\0005\PLE\mem¤ in support of 1
motion to strike060l04 {
l
l
l N

1 l
U _ Case 3:03-cv-00636-JBA Document 54 Filed 06/O1/2004 Page 2 of 3
a
The plaintiff’ s submissions in support of her motion are in violation of some of the i
foregoing principles as follows:
Irrelevant and Immaterial Matter
9 - 10. References to other lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs counsel for other plaintiffs
have nothing whatever to do with the determination of liability in this case and are offered for no
other reason than to prejudice the defendants in the mind of the Court.
15. References to J BC’s Website also have no bearing on liability in the instant action.
16. References to out-of-state offices are immaterial to any issue raisedlby the plaintiff s
motion.
17. The purported excerpt from a licensing application is not properly authenticated.
18. Website statement that check fees will be imposed in states that permit them is
irrelevant and not properly authenticated. i
19. An unauthenticated 1998 letter directed to an entity not a party herein is hearsay and I
irrelevant to the liability issues in this case. .
20. References to a subpoena in West Virginia are immaterial.
29. The document in question is not properly authenticated and has no relationship to
collection activity alleged by the plaintiff in this case. i
WHEREFORE, the foregoing numbered items and documents should be stricken from
the record in support of the plaintiff’ s motion for partial summary judgment as to liability in this
action. .
iecsvvvxooosxvraxmeme in support of 2
metres to smkeoeoioq
· l
R l
-......T......... .mw.Y|

I I
é Case 3:03-cv-00636-JBA Document 54 Filed 06/O1/2004 Page 3 of 3 i
THE DEFENDANTS,
- I I
By: eb-·
Jonathan D. Elliot (Ct 05762) T
Kleban & Samor, P.C.
2425 Post Road
Southport, CT 06490
(203) 254-8969
I
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this
day of June 2004, to: . I
I
Joanne S. Faulkner, Esq. i
123 Avon Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Jonathan D. Elliot

I
JBC8777\0005\PLE\mcmo in support of 3 `
motion to strike060l04
I
I
I