Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 62.9 kB
Pages: 3
Date: February 23, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 532 Words, 3,273 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22940/74.pdf

Download Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 62.9 kB)


Preview Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
. .... .-t...
Case 3:03-cv-01010-JBA Document 74 Filed O2/22k2005 Paget of 3 I
H \`[];‘]_E-_hGC`l. Stacie? .`'`_ '
I ·y;~;»;.r.:>lr=t· Ul °E,`;.1E§;;T§,7`(Y. ;.:f I
I 171mtD HY *~***“ ’"’ /
,
}•·••••••*i€é§Ei·ii.FEIJB, tjxgrk I
`. _ ·—.--.·-n- I
I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT `
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT _
CECIL YOUNG, : I
: CIV. NO. 3:03Cl 1010 (JBA) _ I
Plaintiff : , I
vs. _ S
’ CITY OF BRIDGEPORT HOUSING
AUTHORITY, ET AL : I
Defendants : FEBRUARY 22 2005 l
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ R QUEST TO
( AMEND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES l
The Plaintiff, Cecil Young, in t he above captioned matter objects to the
Defendants, Bridgeport Housing Authority and Colin Vice’s req est to amend affirmative
defenses dated February 7, 2005. The Defendants in the insta t case are attempting to
add two new special defenses which are identified as the Fifth nd Sixth affirmative I
l
defenses in the Defendant’s proposed amendment. The proposed affirmative defenses
seek to add the defenses of The Hatch Act and qualified immu ity.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend a pleading
may only be given when factors such as undue delay or undue rejudice to the
opposing party are absent. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). It would be
' l
l
I
1
.... aa ml



l
Case 3:03-cv-01010—J.BA Document 74 Filed 02/22k2005 Page 2 of 3 j
¢· " j
l
l R
4
l
i
unduly prejudicial for the Defendants to amend its affirmative d fenses. Discovery in
the instant case has ended and the instant case is scheduled f r trial on I\/larch 4, 2005.
it would be extremely prejudicial to the Plaintiff to have the Def ndants’ proposed ,
affirmative defenses added at this late stage of the litigation on the eve of trial. The filing I
of additional affirmative defenses at this stage of the proceedin s will preclude the j
Plaintiff from an adequate opportunity to explore the basis of th Defendants new l
defenses through discovery and to seek to have the defenses r vised or eliminated V
through dispositive pretrial motions. N
For the foregoing reasons the Defendants, Bridgeport H using Authority and I
I Collin Vice's Request to Amend should be denied.
Respectf lly submitted, P
THE PL INTIFF,
CECIL n I 2
itli
` .1 . · Eiuiiv oiaa
AL / · HING; : CHANIS
1‘l15l\/l `n Stre i- 710
Bridgepoil, CT • » • • ·
Telepho e: (203) 333-8500 5
Facsimil : (203) 334-0305 l
l
2 l
_ _+l
i
l
l
l
l
l

l if l
_ _ M Case 3:03-cv-O1010—JBA Document 74 Filed O2/22k2005 Page 3 of3
i l
F czmiricxrnou l I
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed postage prepaid in this
the 22“° day of February, 2005 to: `
Barbara BrazzeI—l\/lassaro, Esq. ;
Associate City Attorney l
Office of the City Attorney
999 Broad Street Q
Bridgeport, CT 06604
James Il/lahar, Esq. , l
Michael T. Ryan, Esq. ‘ . i
Ryan, Ryan, Johnson & Deluca, LLP 2/ .
80 Fourth Street ./` `
samrom, or 00000
A TH I me , ,,.. . _
mm ·- Sfiperior Court
l
2. J “

l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l