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

Df“m“`I_—`_——”_—wm`_`”`i`—"”_“”“““"_’_`""»§`J"§“Taata¤ :> `¤
ase 3:03-cv-OO3?3=W|G Document 123 Filed 10/07/20040 ` Page$§f 4 fi
LD l
I
n `’'`
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CFOURT M i' I I E T “ "J l
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT , __ E
Jl¥§°il UCS ~m] ,0, $@2 [tl i
l
WASLEY PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED ) CIVIL ACTION 3€§?G13iCzfV`3]8§ (DIS)
ET AL. ) r ` I t l
> l
vs. )
) Q
- BARRY LEONARD BULAKITES, ET AL. ) OCTOBER 7, 2004 Q
l
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN ORPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRA APPEARANCE
The Plaintiffs hereby object to the Motion For Leave To Withdraw Appearance (the
1
"Motion to Withdraw") tiled by Maurice T. FitzMaurice and Peter K. Rydel of the law
firm Reid and Reige ("Det`endants’ Counsel") as counsel for Defendants Barry L.
Bulakites, James W. Winslow and Joshua Adams§ Corporation (the "Bulakites
. l
Defendants”). Apparently, the claimed basis for the Motion to Withdraw has been set l
forth in a memorandum of law, which has been filed under seal. Thus, the Plaintiffs have
I
been provided no basis or explanation whatsoever for the Motion to Withdraw. In the
absence of any basis or explanation for Defendants’ Counsel’s withdrawal, the Plaintiffs l
object thereto.
According to Rule 7(e) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, withdrawal of i
l
appearance "normally shall not be granted except upon a showing that other counsel has
appeared or the party has elected to proceed pro se .... " In cases where the party fails to
engage other counsel or to file a pro se appearance, thge Court may grant a motion to
l
J
cnmumonz,»=nzesnAn.¤aMEAm£v · Arr0aNEvs AT raw E
49 wzruznsrnsrc Avenue · HAsrFosm,coNNEcr¤cur 06114-1102 · tsscrszamuc `
-- ~~—~ ——·—· :i$iTT·*‘*"""”""“"’“'““"'_`—"""""*"?"“*"Z" ''''. i

;_i " QL-- N .. A __ _, __ H H M U H U - I - I - I - I - I - I - I - YI I- VI I- Ir


‘l“‘""‘"»‘“·"““*—‘“*“*_ "“"1-"“"’Lt""‘*““·T·“"*“‘——*·····“·————·
ase 3:03-cv-OO3?3¤l/VIG Document 123 Filed 10{Oj§2004 Page 2 of 4
`_e,, } \


withdraw only upon a showing of “good cause." L. ZCiv. R. 7(e). In its Motion to
Withdraw, Defendants’ Counsel gives no indication that substitute counsel will appear on
behalf of the Bulakites Defendants or that the individual defendants, Bulakites and
Winslow, have elected to proceed pro se. It is doubtful that Defendants’ Counsel intends to
suggest that any particular information regarding substitute counsel is privileged and
should only be disclosed under seal. The Plaintiffs should be provided with a meaningful
opportunity to object to the Motion to Withdraw. Unless iinformation regarding substitute
counsel, along with a full explanation of the basis for the withdrawal is provided to the
Plaintiffs, the Motion to Withdraw should be denied.
Ultimately, it is the Plaintiffs who will be prejudiced the attorneys representing the
Bulakites Defendants are permitted to withdraw their Appearances. This matter has been
pending since March, 2003. The Bulakites Defendants arei well aware that the Plaintiffs are
under severe financial pressure, in part, as a consequence of the misappropriation of
pension funds, which are the subject of this litigatidn. In addition, the Bulakites
Defendants are cognizant that with each passing month, that financial pressure on the i
Plaintiffs is exacerbated. If the attorneys for the Bulakites Defendants are permitted to
withdraw at this time, without the immediate appearance of substitute counsel, further
progress in this case will be impeded, leaving little pgossibility of moving toward an
expeditious resolution. lt is important to note that Det`endants’ Counsel previously filed a
Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearance from this case in J amuary, 2004 (the "former Motion to
F

2 l
is WmERS§Efé“K‘§L’i$s'é"‘.“‘E2'a$$3"§‘?¤"é%'NE&T.€5¥%22“$.`f?l'3§ ttwaa emu
i l

. .--........ .-..m.....~%.".~......c.; ........iTs.111e..__ .....i._._.___ _____
_ 1
ase 3:03-cv-OO38<3-XQVIG Document 123 Filed 10€)7§2004 Page 3 of 4
1 ____/
i A l
· 1
l l
i . 1
i Withdraw"). The accompanying Memorandum of Law in support of such former Motion
to Withdraw was filed under seal. The Plaintiffs objected to such Motion for the same
1
reasons the Plaintiffs now object to the current Motionf to Withdraw at hand, and this
Court subsequently denied the former Motion to Withdraiw (under seal). Accordingly, the
1 1
current Motion to Withdraw should likewise be denied. 1
For the reasons set forth above, and in the absence of an immediate appearance by i
substitute counsel for the Bulakites Defendants, or the demonstration of good cause by
Defendants’ Counsel, the Motion to Withdraw should be dienied.
WASLEY PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED
AND PRECISION MOLDING COMPANY, 1
INC., THE PLAINTIFFS l
1
By: ] .
eph V!. Meane F !
anmoije, FitzG { d & Meaney
49 Wethersfield Avenue l
Hartford; CT 06114 |
Phone: (S60) 522-9100
Federal Bar No. ct3 15
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
3 1 i
cnAm1w¤az,1=1rzesn,¤t¤a.mnmev · ATTOHNEYSATLAW I
49 WETHERSFIELD AVENUE • HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06‘|1Q4—‘|‘lO2 • (860) 522-9100 E
Z i

A "**"‘·‘ ""”*"’""" I.1.1111t-_...i;..,.,,_, ,, __
i I
1se 3:03-cv-W32?-JSVIG Document 123 Filed 10€)7b2004 Page 4 of 4 1
. . - - 1
1
1 1
Q I
CERTIFICATION
This is t0 certify that a copy of the following was mailed, first class postage prepaid I
on the 7th of October, 2004 to the following:
Maurice T. Fitzmaurice, Esq.
Peter K. Rydel, Esq. _
Reid & Riege, P.C. 1
One Financial Plaza 1
Hartford, CT 06103-3185 - \
Deborah S. Freeman, Esq.
Bryan D. Short, Esq. 1
Bingham McCutchen _
One State Street _
Hartford, CT 06103-3178
Albert Zakarian, Esq. I 1
Victoria Woodin Chavey, Esq. `
Eric L. Sussman, Esq.
Day, Berry & Howard .
City Place
Hartford, CT 06103-3499 -
Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq. i
Ian O. Smith, Esq.
Moukawsher & Walsh g
21 Oak Street, Suite 209
Hartford, CT 06106
Theodore J. Tucci, Esq. =
Jean E. Tomasco, Esq. .
Robinson & Cole, LLP 5
280 Trumbull Street _ I
Hartford, CT 06103-3597 p .
Jo ph VL Meaney, Jr.
l 1
1 1
4 1
cnnnxnnmonamzesnarna mznmzv · ATTORNEYS Amaw 1
49 wzrasssrssate Avenue · Hanrrono, CONNECTICUTOB114-1102 · 1ss¤1 522-9100 1
. 1