Free Motion to Continue - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-01010-JBA

Document 73

Filed 02/22/2005

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CECIL YOUNG, Plaintiff VS. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL Defendants : : : : : : : : : : CIV. NO. 3:03CV1010 (JBA)

FEBRUARY 18, 2005

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE The Plaintiff respectfully requests and moves this Court to continue the trial date with regard to the above captioned to a date after May 10, 2005. The reason for this request is that undersigned counsel pursuant to previous Court scheduling orders believed that the instant case would be ready and exposed for trial by June 1, 2005. A subsequent Court order dated February 3, 2005 directed jury selection to commence on March 2, 2005 and trial on March 4, 2005. Undersigned counsel already has a conflict with two court cases scheduled in the Superior Court of Bridgeport, one being the case of the Greater Bridgeport Transit District ("GBTD"), et al v. Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority, et al, Docket No. CV-990359589-S. This case is a relatively old case and involves occurrences that happened

1

Case 3:03-cv-01010-JBA

Document 73

Filed 02/22/2005

Page 2 of 4

during the former City of Bridgeport Mayor, Joseph P. Ganim's administration and as they relate to the directors of the GBTD and the method and manner of their removal during the year 1998. Other defendants in said matter include the Towns of Fairfield, Stratford and Trumbull and their chief elected officials. In the matter of Jose Betancourt v. Bridgette L. Foster, Docket No. CV-01-0383096-S, we had a realistic expectation that this case would resolve, regretfully it did not. Both of the aforementioned matters have long standing trial dates to commence on February 23, 2005 and at this point in time it would appear one may go forward and the second will follow. It is anticipated that the GBTD case may take four to six (4-6) weeks to try and possibly longer since the plaintiffs and defendants are all well known therefore jury selection may be lengthy. Prior to seeking the continuance herein we checked with the Caseflow office of the Superior Court in Bridgeport and ascertained that at least at this time there will be Judges available to preside next week. We are in the process of preparing both of the above cases for trial and would have great difficulty handling the conflict that the March 4, 2005 trial date would occasion; although we certainly recognize that this Court does have a priority, nonetheless we ask the Court's indulgence and consideration relative to this request for a continuance.

2

Case 3:03-cv-01010-JBA

Document 73

Filed 02/22/2005

Page 3 of 4

We have confirmed with Attorney James A. Mahar that he has no objection to our request for a continuance. We have also spoken to Attorney Barbara Brazzel-Massaro who has indicated that she would have an objection to a continuance because of her own trial schedule. Respectfully submitted, THE PLAINTIFF, CECIL YOUNG By:________________________ THOMAS J. WEIHING, ct 00138 DALY, WEIHING & BOCHANIS 1115 Main Street, Suite 710 Bridgeport, CT 06604 Telephone: (203) 333-8500 Facsimile: (203) 334-0305

3

Case 3:03-cv-01010-JBA

Document 73

Filed 02/22/2005

Page 4 of 4

ORDER The foregoing motion, it having been heard is hereby ORDERED: GRANTED / DENIED. BY THE COURT

________________________ Judge / Clerk

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed postage prepaid in this the 18th day of February, 2005 to: Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, Esq. Associate City Attorney Office of the City Attorney 999 Broad Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 James Mahar, Esq. Michael T. Ryan, Esq. Ryan, Ryan, Johnson & Deluca, LLP 80 Fourth Street Stamford, CT 06905

______________________________ THOMAS J. WEIHING Commissioner of the Superior Court

4