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

Case 3:03-cv-00623-CFD Document 20 Filed 02/12/2004 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
KAREN HARTER, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
) 3:03CV623 (CFD)
)
v. )
)
US INVESTIGATIONS )
SERVICES, INC., )
)
Defendant. ) February 12, 2004
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendant US Investigations Services, Inc. (“Defendant") hereby submits this
response in opposition to Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration dated February 6, 2004.
Plaintiff s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s January 27, 2004 decision granting
Defendanfs Motion to Strike should be denied. Even after the Court considers Plaintiffs
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike, the Court’s decision must stand
because of the defects contained in Plaintiff s Complaint.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2003, Defendant filed a Motion to Strike the Complaint or Portions
Thereof Without Prejudice. The basis for this Motion was that Plaintiff s Complaint failed to
comply with the requirements of Rules 8(a), 8(e) and l2(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. In particular, Plaintiff s Complaint, which was 30 pages in length and contained 104
paragraphs, included numerous immaterial and/or impertinent allegations which Defendant

Case 3:03-cv-00623-CFD Document 20 Filed 02/12/2004 Page 2 of 4
sought to have stricken. In the Motion, Defendant’s attorney also offered to accept service of a
redrafted complaint so that it would not be necessary for Plaintiff to retain a Marshall to serve
the new Complaint. For reasons which are not apparent, Plaintiff s counsel rejected this offer
and instead filed a detailed Memorandum in Opposition dated August 18, 2003. On January 27,
2004, the Court granted Defendanfs Motion to Strike. The Court stamped its decision on
Defendant’s Motion to Strike indicating that the Motion was "GRANTED. absent obiection".
II. ARGUMENT
Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s January 27, 2004 decision
contending that the Court failed to consider her Memorandum in Opposition and that a
consideration of her Memorandum "might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached
by the court". Defendant acknowledges that Plaintiff submitted a Memorandum in Opposition.
However, Defendant is not aware whether the Court considered Plaintiff s Memorandum before
granting its Motion to Strike. Whether or not the Court considered Plaintiff s Memorandum,
Defendant denies that any of the arguments contained in Plaintiff s Memorandum are sufficient
to evereenie the defects in Plaintiffs Complaint. These defects arc detailed in Defendant’s
Motion to Strike dated June 23, 2003 which is hereby incorporated into this response. Based on
these previously submitted arguments, it is clear that Plaintiff s Complaint cannot withstand a
Motion to Strike. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff s Motion for
Reconsideration be denied and that Plaintiff be ordered to refile the Complaint in compliance
-2-

Case 3:03-cv-00623-CFD Document 20 Filed 02/12/2004 Page 3 of 4
with the Court’s January 27, 2004 decision.
THE DEF ENDANT,
US INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, INC.,
BY MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
ITS ATTORNEY
By___
Richard Voigt (CT 05320)
Robert J. Gallo (CT 19982)
McCarter & English, LLP
CityP1ace I, 185 Asylum Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
(860) 275-6700
-3-

A Case 3:03-cv-00623-CFD Document 20 Filed 02/12/2004 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIF F ’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION has been sent via first
class U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, this __th day of February, 2004 to:
Attomey Mark P. Carey
Carey & Associates, P.C.
71 Old Post Road, Suite One
Southport, CT 06490
Robert J. Gallo
HARTFORD: 608560 01
l
l

l
-4-