Free Order on Motion for Sanctions - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

V I “ S 050t//0//mf/t/500
iii t I FILED
Q , { » l H Q UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
. , DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT mm APR} 2-l A H: I 5
· _ NICHOLAS CAGGIANIELLO, NEIL : CASE NO. jim l
HOWARD and THoMAs FALCO, on ¤ I “‘ ` ` “ ’ ‘“ ‘ * "
` behalf of themselves and all other similarly ‘ ` : A tg
E situated employees of FSG PrivatAir, Inc. A : I 0 A
g I I PLAINTIFFS, . ; I ,
, VS. I ‘ : _ ‘
FSG PRIVATAIR, INC. and in their A I I if
individual and official capacities DAVID C. : I I
HURLEY, HUGH RREGAN, THOMAS H. I ° : ‘ , ‘
I MILLER and THOMAS L. CONNELLY · : I A
§ DEFENDANTS. E
—_ A APRIL 26, 2004
it I
g DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Defendants FSG PrivatAir, Inc. (rPiivotAiir), David C. Hurley, Hugh F. Regan, Thomas H.
.g I Miller and Thomas L. Connelly, by their attorney, move the court pursuant to F.R.C.P. ll (c) for an
» I order imposing sanctions on the Plaintiffs’ attorney for violations of F.R.C.P. ll(b)(2) and (3).
E % Your Honor denied Defendants’ original Motion for Sanctions at oral argtunent on October 9,
5 `
2004, btcrgsubsiieguently ordered the parties to conduct discovery on subject matter jurisdiction.
. A .-r— ~ div t—— I ,
I gBased orgjdiscovéiiy, the Defendants submit that Platiniffs’ attorney had no reasonable basis to assert
A i»;;>a¢- -
g ¢1aimS.€$d¢r thqfieir rLdb0r Standards Act ("FLSA") and therefore, renew their Motion for
til ; redliesting sanctions, the Defendants rely ontheir Renewed Motion to Dismiss filed
g simultaneously with the Court. r
it te 0 ,
Q
g l WAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
l ,
lg ,‘ g N 1 ’
. 5
Q A i ti I
2% sig Q-