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

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 169-3 Filed O2/07/2006 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
SUSAN E. WOOD, CIVIL ACTION NO.
3 :03-CV-986 (ICH)
Plaintiff,
v.
SEl\/[PRA ENERGY TRADING
CORPORATION, F€bI'L13.I'y 7,
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF BRENDAN J. {'YROURKE
1. The undersigned, Brendan J`. O’Rourke, declares as follows under penalties of
perjury, and respectfully submits this Declaration in response to Defendant’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees, dated January 16, 2006.
2. The undersigned was trial counsel to the Plaintiff] Susan E. Wood, in the above-
referenced action.
3. Attached hereto is the CCHRO reconsideration decision made the subject ofthe
Plaintiffs Memorandum and Opposition to Defendant Sempra’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees.
4. In support of the bona fide and good faith Title VH claims brought by Plaintiff
Susan Wood in the above action, and in contravention to the assertions made by
l

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 169-3 Filed O2/07/2006 Page 2 of 4
Sempra in its Motion for Attorney’s Fees, the undersigned offers the following to
rebut the assertion that Sempra put Plaintiff on notice of the purportedly
unsupported nature of her claims in a letter from Sempra’s counsel, dated May 31,
2002.
5. Specifically, the undersigned had numerous dialogues with Attorney Mary
Dollarhide, lead trial counsel to Sempra, in which the undersigned and Attorney
Dollarhide discussed the possibility of either party prevailing at the trial level. In
particular, Attorney Dollarhide stated to the undersigned that based upon the
evidence which existed, that the Plaintiff might well prevail on her claims at trial.
Thus, contrary to the assertions made in the May 31, 2002 letter which asserts the
purported unfounded nature of Plaintiffs claims, Sempra’s trial counsel on the
eve of commencement of trial recognized that the facts and evidence which
Plaintiff intended to produce at trial brought the possibility of a verdict in favor of
the Plaintiff
6. Further, in context of the above discussion regarding settlement and to rebut
Sempra’s assertion made in the May 31, 2002 letter, Sempra offered increasing
amounts to Plaintiff to settle the matter, ultimately offering $275,000.00 in
settlement of Plaintiffs claims, further establishing the bona tide and good faith
nature of Plaintiffs claims. A copy of Sempra’s June 7, 2005 letter which
evidences Sempra’s recognition of the viability of Plaintiffs claims, resulting in a
2

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 169-3 Filed O2/07/2006 Page 3 of 4
settlement offer of $166,48882, (later increased to $275,000.00 verbally), is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.
7. The foregoing facts regarding the settlement position of Sempra and its counsel
are offered to rebut and impeach the representations made by Sempra in its
Motion for Attorney’s Fees, and thus are appropriate for the Court to consider
pursuant to FRE Rule 408.
é
______________,... T-———Bre1Tda1'i*]Tii)’Rourke
3

Case 3:03-cv-00986-JCH Document 169-3 Filed O2/07/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was served via first class mail,
postage pre-paid, to counsel of record as listed below this Tm day of February, 2006.
` _Brendan J. O’Rourke
Raymond W. Bertrand, Esq.
Pau], Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
1055 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901
Mary Dollarhide, Esq.
Paul, Hastings, Ianofsky & Walker LLP
3579 Valley Centre Drive
San Diego, CA 92130
4