Free Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I | .... --_.- .1-.. -._....--.-...._;.J-.....X-;--......_._...¤.—-t-..........
/ l
I ·; " se 3:03-cv—OO373—RNC Document 68 Filed 06/O9/2004 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT ,_ q _
I DISTRICT OF CONNECTLCUT A lO° UO E
l · S· DIS T w
»‘taarp%§`g COURT
RICHARD A MYERS, SHERNETTE : ’ CI _
CLARK, KENNETH BINGI-IAM, and :
= FLOYD MCLEAN, :
I Plaintiffs, : I I
I = v. I
TOWN OF TRUMBULL, CASE NO.: 3:03 CV 373 (RNC) I I .. I
OFFICER COPPOLA, I.D. #24 (first name : .
unknown) (individually and in his official :
capacity), OFFICER, I.D. #35 (name :
unknown) (individually and in his ofHcial :
capacity), SPECTAGUARD, MICHAEL :
I (last name unknown), WESTFIELD :
I SHOPPINGTOWN, JOHN DOES I :
Through 10, Jane Does l through 10, :
and ABC Corp. through XYZ, :
; individually, jointly, and severally, :
I Defendants. June 7, 2004 .
I I
I MOTION TO DISMISS: FAILURE TO POST BOND I
I ; Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3, Defendants Town of Trumbull,
I l Officer Coppola, I.D. #24, and Officer Leos, I.D. #35 hereby move for a summary dismissal I
I against the Plaintiffs, Richard A. Myers, Shernette Clark, Kenneth Bingham and Floyd
I McLean, for their failure to comply with the Court’s Order that they deposit the sum of Five
Hundred ($500.00) Dollars with the Clerk of this Court as security for costs in this action.
The Court granted the moving Defendants’ Motion for Bond on April 28, 2004. The
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED I
l
-- as .- A .. I .. I .. I __ I __ I __ Q, __ Cnll M

I _ ··———"‘—·**—*“_—‘r——·‘dt"“*—·*
I I se 3:03-cv—OO373—RNC Document 68 Filed 06/O9/2004 Page 2 of 2
I <».> (Q)
Plaintiffs did not object to the Motion for Bond. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed
I since the entry ofthe Order on the Defendants’ motion; g L.Civ.R. 83.3(a); and the I
_ Plaintiffs have failed to comply with said Order. The Defendants should not be required to I I
I incur fiirther costs in defense of the present action in light of the Plaintiffs’ failure to I I
I cooperate. I
I WHEREFORE, it is appropriate that the Court enter an order of summary dismissal _
against the Plaintiffs.
DEFENTDANTS, _
TOWN OF TRUMBULL, I I
OFFICER COPPOLA, I.D. #24, AND E
OFFICER LEOS, LD. #35 i
. I
/ I I I
By: I I
t art E. Brown
Hassett & George, P,C.
555 Franklin Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06] 14 I
(860) 296-2111 ‘
[email protected] - I
Fed. Bar it CT 24659 I I `
I