Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 214 Filed 08/22/2008 Page 1 of 3

l
l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
GARY SESSION : CIVHJ ACTION NO: 3:03CV00943 (AWT)
EDWIN RODRIGUEZ AUGUST 22, 2008
DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR ENLARGMQENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE
PLAINTIFF’S 60( E) MOTION
The Defendant, in the above—entitled matter, Edwin Rodriguez (hereinafter, "Rodriguez")
and former Defendant, Stephen Coppola (hereinafter, "Copp0la”), by their attorneys, hereby move
for an enlargement of time to respond to the Plaintiff s 60 (b) motion until the Court renders its
ruling with regard to the Defendant’s Motion to Disrniss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. In
support of this motion, Rodriguez and Coppola state:
1. On August 20, 2007, the Court rendered judgment on Rodriguez and Coppola’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, entering judgment for Coppola on all claims and entering judgment
for Rodriguez as to all claims other than false arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment.
2. On August 8, 2008, Rodriguez filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, alleging, inter alia, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs claims, because,
pursuant to the Rooker~Feldman Doctrine, this Court cannot entertain an examination of the
existence of probable cause as such Endings are intrinsically intertwined with the state court’s prior
. finding of probable cause. The Plaintiff cannot seek to utilize the federal courts as a method of
l issuing appellate review of the state court’s prior findings. 4
l

Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 214 Filed 08/22/2008 A Page 2 of 3
1
l
3. On August 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. l
60 (b) requesting a reversal of the Cou1t’s ruling on the Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment.
4. Rodriguez’s Motion-to Dismiss has not yet been adjudicated.
5. This Court’s subject matter jurisdiction has been challenged. “Without jurisdiction
the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it
ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing
the cause." Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868). "On every writ of error or
appeal, the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction, frst, of this court, and then of the
court from which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and answer for itself
even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it." _(fy_r_ea_t
Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 453, 20 S.Ct. 690, 691-92 (1900). The
requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter "spring[s] Eom the nature and
limits of the judicial power of the United States" and is "inflexible and without exception."
Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, lll U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 511, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884).
6. Accordingly, once there has been a challenge to the Court°s jurisdiction, until
jurisdiction has been established, the Court may not proceed on additional matters of law in
connection with the case.
7. Rodriguez and Coppola respectfully request that, in light of the questions being raised
regarding the Court’s jurisdiction, in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy, the deadline for
Rodriguez and Coppola’s responses to the Plaintiff s 60(b) Motion be extended until a date after the
resolution of the above~referenced Motion to Dismiss.
( 2


Case 3:03-cv-00943-AWT Document 214 Filed 08/22/2008 Page 3 of 3

Based on the foregoing, Defendant asserts that good cause exists for the enlargement of time
as requested herein. l
Pursuant to Local Rule 9, counsel for the Defendants states that opposing counsel consents
to the granting of this motion. Counsel states that this is the first request for motion for enlargement
of time as to this deadline.
DEFENDANT,
/s/ Thomas E. Katon
Thomas E. Katon (ct0l 565)
Susman, Duffy & Segaloft, P.C.
` 59 Elm Street
V New Haven, Connecticut 06510
Phone: (203) 624-9830
` Fax: (203) 562~8430
e-mail: [email protected]
His Attorney
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on August 22, 2008 a copy of the Defendants’ Memorandum in Support
of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subj ect Matter Jurisdiction was filed »
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic tiling. Notice of this filing
will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the court’s electronic tiling system or by mail to
anyone unable to accept electronic tiling as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may
access this tiling through the court’s CM/ECF System.
I /s/ Thomas E. Katon
A Thomas E. Katon
Federal Bar No. ct 01565
Susman, Duffy & Segaloft, P.C.
59 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510
tel.: 203-624—9830
fax: 203-562-8430
email: tkaton@,[email protected]
Thomas E. Katon
l 3