Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 208 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CLARENCE COLLINS, JR., et al )
) 3:03-CV-945 (CFD)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. )
)
OLIN CORPORATION )
)
Defendant )
_J
OLIN CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BASED ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
COMES NOW Defendant Olin Corporation ("Olin") and hereby submits its Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment based on statute of limitations pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal
Rules ofCivil Procedure. In support of this motion, Olin states as follows:
l) Plaintiffs served Olin with their original Complaint on May 2, 2003. As a result,
Olin’s motion for summary judgment focuses on what putative class members knew, or
reasonably should have known, concerning the discovery of contamination in the Newhall
neighborhood before May l, 200l — since the parties agree that § 52-577c(b)’s two-year statute
of limitations applies to Plaintiffs’ state law claims.
2) It is undisputed that from December 2000 to April 18, 2001, there were several
public meetings, a great deal of publicity, and readily available information (such as test data
from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)) that established that
contamination had been discovered at the Hamden Middle School, Rochford Field. Mill Rock
Park, and in the public rights-of-way in the Newhall neighborhood. Precedent from this District
establishes that this readily available and highly-publicized information was known to Plaintiffs
Oral Argument Requested l

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 208 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 2 of 4
by April 18, 2001. See, ag., Staehr v. Hargforal Financial Servs., 406 F. Supp.2d 329, 339 (D.
Conn. 2006).
3) lt is also undisputed that from January 2001 to April 18, 2001, the Newhall
Coalition and Cummings & Lockwood (a law firm that was communicating with and meeting
with residents of the Newhall neighborhood), had sought and obtained access from the DEP to
publicly—available test data results that confirmed the presence of contamination at Rochford
Field, Mill Rock Park. and in the public rights-of-way in the Newhall neighborhood.
4) Furthermore, it is undisputed that on April 18, 2001, the DEP stated, in a publicly-
available document, that it had determined that the former landfill area also includes Rochford
Field, Mill Rock Park and several residential properties.
5) Notably, on the same date, Joseph Frasier, the president of the Newhall Coalition,
advised the Mayor of the Town of Hamden that there was no question that the Newhall
neighborhood was contaminated, causing residents to allegedly experience stress of unknown
potential health problems and a drastic reduction in property value.
6) Under the applicable statute of limitations, Plaintiffs had two years from April 18,
2001 (at the latest) to serve Olin with their Complaint. Plaintiffs, however, failed to do so. As a
result, the Court should grant partial summary judgment in favor of Olin with respect to claims
by the Stigma Subclass and the Contaminated Properties Subclass, because their claims are time·
barred.
7) Olin incorporates herein Olin’s Local Rule 56(a)(l) Statement of Material
Undisputed Facts, pursuant to Local Rule 56(a)(l) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the
District of Connecticut, as if fully set forth herein.
Oral Argument Requested 2

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 208 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 3 of 4
8) Olin also incorporates herein Olin’s Memorandum in Support of O1in’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment, as if fully set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, Olin respectfully requests that the Court grant partial summary judgment
with respect to all claims by the Stigma Subclass and the Contaminated Properties Subclass, and
grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
HUSCH & EPPENBERGER, LBC
fx J lj K {
Byzl A \»i»U1l<‘~r `· ld/\»‘L
J Michael H. Wetmore (ct2 99)
Joel B. Samson (ct24898)
Omri E. Praiss (ECP registration pending)
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Telephone: 314-480-1500
Fax: 314-480-1505
[email protected]
]‘O€l.SEl1'I1SO1’1l@}l1LlSCl1.COlT1
[email protected]
and
BROWN RUDNICK BERLACK ISRAELS LLP
Mark S. Baldwin, Esq.
185 Asylum St.
CityPlace I, 38th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: 860-509-6500
Fax: 860-509-6501
mbaldwin@brownrudnicl<.com
Attorneys for Defendant Olin Corporation
Oral Argument Requested 3

Case 3:03-cv-00945-CFD Document 208 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was filed electronically with the
Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Cou1t’s electronic filing system upon the
attorneys of record registered for the Court’s ECF system (as reflected by the email addresses
shown below) or by mailing the same, first class mail, postage prepaid, to the non-participants in
the Court’s ECF system, on thislgday of May, 2007.
Neil T. Leifer, Esq. Mark Roberts, Esq.
Brad J. Mitchell, Esq. Andrew A. Rainer, Esq.
Thornton & Naumes L.L.P. McRoberts , Roberts & Rainer, LLP
100 Summer Street, 30th Floor 53 State St.
Boston, Massachusetts 021 10 Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 720-1333 Telephone: (617) 722-8222
l Facsimile: (617) 720-2445 Facsimile: (617) 720-2320
[ [email protected] inrobeitsfcbmcrobertslaw.com
I [email protected] [email protected]
V Monte E. Frank, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintw
1 Cohen and Wolf, PC
158 Deer Hill Avenue
Danbury, CT 06810
Telephone: (203) 367-6202
Facsimile: (203) 791-8149
_mf`rank/EDcohenandwolf`.com
David B. Zabel, Esq.
Cohen and Wolf, PC
1 115 Broad Street
Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604
Telephone: (203) 368-0211
Facsimile: (203) 394-9901
aclark@cohenandwolf`.com
[email protected] l
[email protected] I
(lx ll 1
rg ri.;] ,_ C ...». , ·.._ M `__
Oral Argument Requested 4