Free Motion for Clarification - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 102.0 kB
Pages: 4
Date: March 2, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 820 Words, 4,678 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22941/37.pdf

Download Motion for Clarification - District Court of Connecticut ( 102.0 kB)


Preview Motion for Clarification - District Court of Connecticut
I I . iT__`—"`—_""`__—""
Case 3:03-cv-O101A ; ‘ \._,. .-»*
I I ·
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I I Ie. ` 2 ‘=
I I I DISTRICT OF C0NNr3c1·1(3UT
I mtg YI `'_` B TI ID I? I Cl
NICHOLAS CAGGIANIELLO, NEIL : CASE NO. 303>C\/1011 (AWT)
HOWARD and THOMAS FALCO, on ; — - - · I g.; if ,53 ``_` I If? II ·
I behalf of themselves and all other similarly ; '4 '°'_; I iQ`IIii.I . IS I ··
situated employees of FSG PrivatAir, Inc. : I
I PLAINTIFFS, I
I I vs. I I
I I Fso P1uvATA1R, mc. and in their I
individual and official capacities DAVID C. :
I HURLEY, HUGH F. REGAN, THOMAS H. : I
I MILLER and THOMAS L. CONNELLY : I
I r I
I I DEFENDANTS. : FEBRUARY 26, 2004 I
I
I I
I r I
I I DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
The Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby move this I
Court for an order clarifying when the Defendants are to answer the Complaint. The case I
management plan approved by Your Honor on December 24, 2003 did not set a new date I
I
for the Defendants to answer the Complaint. The Defendants originally proposed a
I
November 23, 2003 date to answer the Complaint but Your Honor did not address this
issue in the December 24, 2003 Order. The Defendants respectfully request that Your I
Honor issue an Order postponing the time the Defendants have to answer the Complaint
until Your Honor rules on the pending subject matter jurisdiction issue.
I The Defendants intend to file a dispositive motion on subject matter jurisdiction I
I on or before April 26, 2004 that will, in all likelihood, result in the dismissal ofthe I
I
I NO ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
I
I
I I

I · I
I I » Case 3:03-cv-O101@/VT Document 37 Filed O2/2@O4 Page 2 of 4
I Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The Defendants have conducted discovery concerning subject
I matter jurisdiction and believe that they are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act
Q i
I I claims of the Plaintiffs because the Plaintiffs are employed by an air carrier. However,
I I the Defendants intend to file an Answer to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint if Your Honor denies
I the Defendants’ upcoming Motion. I
I I The filing of an Answer by the Defendant will not clarify the subject matter
I I
I I jurisdiction issue in any matter and potentially will lead to additional motion practice I
I concerning any counterclaims and defenses. The parties are currently conducting subject
“ I
· matter jurisdiction discovery and it will be completed by April 26, 2004.
I I I
I I Based on the foregoing, the Defendants respectfully request that Your Honor
I issue an Order postponing the time the Defendants have to answer the Complaint until
Your Honor rules on the pending subject matter jurisdiction issue.
I
I
I Respectfully Submitted, I
I THE DEFENDANTS I
By: I
Joseph C. Maya, sq. ct/ 17742
Russell J. Sweeting, Esq. ct/24877 .
I Maya & Associates, P. C.
- I 183 Sherman Street I
I Fairfield, CT 06824
I Telephone: (203) 255-5600 I
I Fax No: (203) 255-5699 I
I I
| I
I
I I
I 2 I
I
“ I
I

I I ,
I I · Case 3:03-cv-O101@I/VT Document 37 Filed O2/2@O4 Page 3 of 4
I I
I I
I I
I CERTIFICATION
I This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed this 26th day of February
I 2004 to:
I James T. Baldwin, Esq.
I I Coles, Baldwin & Craft, LLC I
I I 1261 Post Road, P.O. Box 577
I I Fairfield, CT 06824
I I 3 I
I I
I Russell J. Sweeting
I I I
I I I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
“ I
I
I
' I
I
I
I I
I 3
I I
I

4 4 · Case 3:03-cv-O101@/VT Document 37 Filed O2/2®O4 Page 4 of 4
I I
I
Â¥ I
I I
I
J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 4 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
4 I -——e—~—-——-»—————.
I — NICHOLAS CAGGIANIELLO, NEIL : CASE NO. 303CVIOI1 (AWT)
4 4 HOWARD and THOMAS FALCO, on :
4 behalf of themselves and all other similarly : I
4 situated employees of F SG PrivatAir, Inc. :
I : .
; I PLAINTIFFS, :
4 vs. ; 4
4 FSG PRIVATAIR, INC. and in their
4 individual and official capacities DAVID C. 2 4
4 HURLEY, HUGH F. REGAN, THOMAS H. : I
` 4 MILLER and THOMAS L. CONNELLY : 4
` 4 : 4
4 DEFENDANTS. :
4
4 ORDER 4
4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 4
4
4 (1) the time for the Defendants to answer the Complaint is postponed until the pending
4 subject matter jurisdiction issue is ruled upon. I
4
4 Dated: February , 2004
I
4
4
I ALVIN W. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. {
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT g
4 4
I
I
4 I
I