Free Motion for Attorney Fees - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 60 Filed 09/15/2004 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CLIFTON S. FREEDMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) C.A. N0. 3:03CVl048 (PCD)
v. )
)
AMERICA ONLINE, INC., THE TOWN OF )
FAIRFIELD, DETECTIVE WILLIAM YOUNG )
AND DETECTIVE DAVID BENSEY )
(Individually and in their official capacities as )
police officers for the Town of Fairfield), )
)
Defendants. ) SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On June 15, 2004, the Defendants served upon the Plaintiff a "Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment" and filed a notice with the Court reflecting that service. On July 16,
2004, having asked the Defendants for, and received, a one week extension of time to tile a
response to the motion, the Plaintiff served a memorandum of law in opposition thereto. To
date, notwithstanding repeated inquires from the undersigned counsel, the Defendants have
failed to file the summary judgment briefs with the Court}
I On Wednesday, September 8, 2004, the undersigned counsel conferred by telephone with
counsel for the Defendants, who stated that the summary judgment briefs had just been mailed to
the Court. He also stated that the Defendants did not intend to file a reply brief When the
undersigned cotmsel asked why the Defendants had taken so long to file the summary judgment
briefs with the Court since they were not even filing a reply brief, counsel for the Defendants
explained that he did not realize that it was his responsibility to file the "packet" of summary
judgment briefs with the Court, pursuant to Judge Dorsey’s standing order. On September 13,
2004, the imdersigned counsel spoke with the clerk, who stated that she had not received any
recent filings in this case. As of September 14, 2004, the PACER system still does not reflect
the filing of the parties’ summary judgment briefs.
nix/2.2442/2/easvsevi
09/14/04-HRT/'

Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 60 Filed 09/15/2004 Page 2 of 3
The Defendants’ seemingly deliberate refusal to file the parties’ respective summary
judgment briefs violates the Court’s scheduling order and is causing undue delay inthe
progress of this matter towards trial. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was required to expend
j considerable time and resources preparing a memorandum of law in opposition to the
H Defendants’ motion.
In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff moves the Court: 1) to strike or deny the
Defendants’ summary judgment motion as untimely; and 2) to award the Plaintiff his attorneys
fees incurred in preparing the memorandum of law in opposition to the Defendants’ motion.
At the Court’s request, the Plaintiff shall submit an affidavit and/or testimony substantiating his
_attorneys’ fees.
THE PLAINTIFF
CLIFTON S. FREEDMAN
/
By: @¤·—»
aniel J. Klau 7957)
H. James Pickerstein (et05094)
Calvin K. Woo (ct24951)
Pepe & Hazard LLP
Goodwin Square
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103-4302
Phone: (860) 522-5175
Fax: (860) 522-2796
dl<[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Robert Y. Altchiler (ct24247)
The Law Offices of Robert Y. Altchiler
191 Post Road West
Westport, CT 06880
2
DJK/22442/2/693766vi
09/14/04.nnn

V Case 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 60 Filed 09/15/2004 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by email and first class mail,
postage prepaid, this 14th day of September, 2004 to the following:
Thomas Murtha, Esq.
Maher & Murtha, LLC
528 Clinton Avenue
P.O. Box 901 MM
Bridgeport, CT 06601 i I
Daniel J . Klau
oJ1<1s2442/2/693166vi
O9/l4/04—HR”[`/ —