Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I li O
l C 3:03- -010 -AWT D l4O ` -
ase cv ocumen Filed O3/(535004 1VtIf6 I I
UNITED STATES DISTRICTCOU · I
lfiitsn
— DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT _
_ iuuutlltl -3 YD l’ “8 I
l NICHOLAS CAGGIANIELLO, NEIL C E N t- {IlVI‘l(U0llF»WT) I
I HOWARD and THOMAS FALCO, on : fig ljj lj, Ul.
I behalf of themselves and all other similarly : I ° i` `
I situated employees of FSG PrivatAir, Inc. :
| :
{ PLAINTIFFS, : I
E VS. :
FSG PRIVATAIR, INC. and in their
individual and official capacities DAVID C. :
HURLEY, HUGH F. REGAN, THOMAS H. : I
' MILLER and THOMAS L. CONNELLY : I
l :
DEFENDANTS. : MARCH 2, 2004
I DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR DEFAULT
I The Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby obj ect to
P1aintiffs’ Motion for Default dated February 27, 2004. The Plaintiffs’ attempt to default E
_ the Defendants constitutes umiecessary motion practice and results in the further delay of
subject matter jurisdiction discovery. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default
should be denied and the Plaintiffs should be sanctioned.
As articulated in the Defendants’ Motion for Clarification dated February 26,
2004, the case management plan approved by Your Honor on December 24, 2003 did not
I set a date for the Defendants to answer the Complaint. The Defendants originally
I proposed a November 23, 2003 date to answer the Complaint but Your Honor did not
I address this issue in the December 24, 2003 Order. The Defendants respectfully request I
I that Your Honor issue an Order postponing the time the Defendants have to answer the
I Complaint until Your Honor rules on the pending subject matter jurisdiction issue.


| _.
l Case 3:03-cv-O10@WT Document 40 Filed O3/@004 Page 2 of 4
ll . l
)
§ The parties have been conducting subject matter jurisdiction discovery since Your
` I I-Ionor’s Order dated December 24, 2003. The Plaintiffs now claim, for the first time,
that the subject matter jurisdiction issue cannot be addressed because the Defendants
l have not answered the Complaint. See Objection to D’s Motion to Exempt from Filing
Answer to Complaint at p. l. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ counsel has currently delayed l
discovery and cancelled scheduled depositions. See Id.
I li The Plaintiffs have failed to articulate how the filing of an Answer will address
the subject matter jurisdiction issue. The filing of an Answer by the Defendants will not
clarify the subject matter jurisdiction issue in any matter and potentially will lead to _
additional motion practice concerning any counterclaims and defenses. An Answer to the 5
I Complaint will not produce evidence to determine whether the Plaintiffs were employed
by an air carrier thereby exempting the Defendants from the Fair Labor Standards Act
(°‘FLSA") claims in the Complaint. The Plaintiffs’ position is unsupportable. Subject
ll matter jurisdiction has not been established in this case as a threshold matter.
Based on the foregoing, the Defendants respectfully request that Your Honor j
issue an Order postponing the time the Defendants have to answer the Complaint until R
Your Honor rules on the pending subject matter jurisdiction issue. In addition, the
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default should be denied and the Plaintiffs should be sanctioned
for unnecessary motion practice resulting in the delay of subject matter jurisdiction
l discovery.
l
l
i
all N
r l
_—l E

I I ~ I
Case 3:03-cv-O10@WT Document 40 Filed O3/@004 Page 3 of 4
I I I
I · I
I Respectfully Submitted, p
I THE DEFENDANTS
I
I ww I
I By: . ·
E Joseph C. Maya, q. ct/17742
Russell J. Sweeting, Esq. ct/24877
Maya &. Associates, P. C.
183 Sherman Street
Fairfield, CT 06824 I
Telephone: (203) 255-5600 I
Fax No: (203) 255-5699
I I
I I
I
I: I
II I

I I
I ‘
I
I I
Il CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed this 2nd day of March I
2004 to;
I
II James T. Baldwin, Esq.
I' Coles, Baldwin & Craft, LLC i
1261 Post Road, P.O. Box 577
Fairfield, CT 06824
I I
Zi 5
I @@0 I
Russell J. Sweeting
I I
I I
I I
I
I
II
I 3
?= I
I
I
I`! EI

I I' ~ ‘
I I' . I
I II Case 3:03-cv-O10@WT Document 40 Filed O3/@004 Page 4 of 4 I
I I ~ ‘ I
J I
I I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
j DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
I I NICHOLAS CAGGIANIELLO, NEIL ; CASE NO. 303Cv1011 (AWT)
HOWARD and THOMAS FALCO, on :
behalf of themselves and all other similarly : _
situated employees of FSG PrivatAir, Inc. :
PLAINTIFFS, I I
VS. :
I :
FSG PRIVATAIR, INC. and in their : I
II individual and official capacities DAVID C. : I
I HURLEY, HUGH F. REGAN, THOMAS H. :
MILLER and THOMAS L. CONNELLY ; I
I = I
DEEENDANTS. ; I
I ORDER I
I .
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) the time for the Defendants to answer the Complaint is postponed until the pending I
-
I Subject matter jurisdiction issue is ruled upon;
II (2) the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default dated February 27, 2004 is denied.
.I

Dated: March , 2004
I
I
II . ALVIN W. THOMPSON, U.s.D.J. I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
II DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
II

I
I
4 I
—I