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

- _ Case 3:03-cv-00623-CFD Document 17 Filed O2/06/20.04;) Qt
O O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT J. ,; r, new F,
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ` il , §`,fQiY_,
HM 'lf - {QD L: V
KAREN HARTER, : fb if E b I J 3
Plaintiff _ F., K. M, HT i .
: CIV. Action Ne.?
v. : FEBRUARY 6, 2004
US INVESTIGATIONS o
SERVICES, INC., :
Defendant
: {
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Karen Harter files the instant memorandum in support of her motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s Order dated January 27, 2004 granting the Defendant’s
Motion to Strike Complaint Without Prejudice.
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT j
On June 23, 2003, the Defendant filed its Motion to Strike the Complaint and
Portions Thereof Without Prejudice. [Doc.#6]. On August 18, 2003, Plaintiff filed her {
Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s motion. On January 27, 2004, the Court
granted the Defendant’s motion "absent objection." Plaintiff files the instant motion for
reconsideration because she did in fact "object" to the Defendant’s motion.
II. ARGUMENT
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its January 27, 2004 Order
because she tiled an objection to Defendant’s motion. I

H ` Case 3:03-cv-00623-CFD Document 17 Filed O2/06/2®%4 Page 2 of 3
“The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. Reconsideration
‘will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or
data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected
to alter the conclusion reached by the court} Shrader v. CSX Transp., 70 F.3d 255, 257
(2d Cir.l995)." ACEguip Ltd. v. Am. Eng‘g Corp., 218 F.R.D. 364, 365 (D.Conn.Nov.5,
2003). {
On August 18, 2003, Plaintiff filed her Memorandum in Opposition to the i
Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Complaint. Plaintiff directs the Court her motion and
respectfully requests reconsideration of her argument ("objection") in opposition to
Defendant’s motion. The January 27, 2004 Order by the Court obviously overlooked her
memorandum in opposition, otherwise the Court would not have granted the order absent
objection.
Plaintiff incorporates herein her previous memorandum of law in opposition to
Defendant’s motion and respectfully requests that the Court deny to the Defendant’s
Motion to Strike and further order the Defendant to tile an Answer to the original
complaint.
III. CONCULSION
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant the instant motion for
reconsideration and deny the Defendant’s Motion to Strike and order the Defendant to
file an Answer to the original complaint.
2 l
1

1. Case 3:03-cv-00623-(EPD Document 17 Filed O2/06/?OQ4 Page 3 of 3 {
n ¤._..·; {
l
l
Dated: Southport, CT PLAINTIFF,
February 6, 2004 KAREN HARTER
By: QE Q % fu
Mark P. Carey (ctl 8)
Carey & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys At Law
71 Old Post Road, Suite One
Southport, CT 06490
(203) 255-4150 tel.
(203) 255-0380 fax.
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE t
THIS IS TO CERTIF Y, that the foregoing was delivered via first class mail,
postage prepaid, this the 6m day of February, 2004 to:
Richard Voigt E
McCarter & English
City Place I
185 Asylum Street l
Hartford, CT 06103
Mark P. carey {
l
F
5
I
A l
3 l
N
l
r,._....._.....s,... ._.._. _._....................,........ea,r ,,,, l