Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

..... .. -. ...... . -....._...+-_..r.r.m_______,,__,______;....-..»—~»»...»~..._-- .... .....14..1 ........
. I 3
Case 3:03-cv—OO373—RNC Document 44 Filed O4/06/2004 " ge 1 0f 1 I
e wi 1
sr o ·
hl Q B1 gms 2 l W ` I
1, s _ R E0 lg:. l llliz. _ 1
M Michael 1. Mc(.0rmac14 185 Asylum I ·et I
mn.vzs.6z·w or -r·n- · xs ‘ rr · iv u ·.
g O Tyl€I` CO0p€I° F HHL3802 H;_It,.0‘IQEC.I· I ""' ,l;:Ym):“Y;"
U) & A1 2 n ri [email protected] 06103-3488 Stamford
EI _,,_| LLP www.tylcrcuoperxmn 86(L'725.6200 Madison
CD 'U Counsellors at Lew Qi; ¢ IQ; so =% I
Ci ri P F, Ir ri I Z-·» 1 - 1
;; 3 gg Flllnrzn ·j¤·5xl iaG?~l`i
gw _ U.S. Dzulétlul zt.:11¤¤i;i€ I
O I5 ,2 ` February 17, 2004 I
J-’ or I
e e r
m I
S 2 VIA HAND DELIVERY ‘
FE J3
cu B The Honorable Robert N. Chatigny
cm Chiefludge
QE! E United States District Court for the
M St District of Connecticut
LQ {U 450 Main Street I
m E Hartford, CT 06103 I
.,.|
8*32 Re: Richard A. Myers, et al. v. Township of Trumbull, et al.
U ::1 Docket No. 3:03-CV-00373 (RNC)
ro 8 . I
1::
g gw Dear Judge Chatigny: I
ro `"' _
QE I represent the defendant, Westfield Shoppingtown Trumbull ("West d”) in the above I
H gpl matter. Pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Order, I write to requ that a prefiling I
B Q, .conference be scheduled to discuss a motion for summary judgment that we int _-• to file on behalf`
45 re of Westfield following the completion of discovery. I I I
··* is
U1 3 Although discovery is not et complete, I ex ect to file a motion for su 1 ar 'ud ment on
T, rc, _ _ Y P II YJ s
E the First Claim of Relief; Second Claim for Reliefi and Fourth Claim for lief of plaintiff`s’
U 3 Amended Complaint dated October 17, 2003 directed to Westfield. The basis •I I he motion will be
gg g that there is no factual or legal basis for the claims alleged against Westfield. II ifically, I believe
8 that the evidence in this case will show that no employee or agent of Westfiel I- as present on the
to 2 date of the incident which gives rise to the plaintiff`s° claims. The incident at iss I _= only involved the
·;I rg plaintiffs, representatives of Spectaguard an independent contractor hired by stfield to provide
qi security services at the Westfield Shoppingtown Trumbull mall, and representat es from the Town
M 3 of 'Trumbull Police Department. Contrary to the allegations in the plaintifl’s’ I I ended complaint,
g g' there is no factual or legal basis for the plainti;ffs’ claims that representatives ol` estfield conspired
E-I E, with representatives of Spectaguard or the Town of Trumbull for purposes of olating plaintiffs’
qi rights under {$1985.
gpg IT I I
qi @ Additionally, because no em loyee or arent of Westfield was involved I the incident that
H . ...· p f I
Q; mmgiiitilifsgallege occurred on July 31, 2001, Westfield can not be held liable for lse imprisonment
0 ii 1 I -1
2. ai ”'·$···-I
in .-1 if? * I _ l
o
& o
nl L: _
....
F ____ I I H . .... Ji4ITTTLITTT;ifiTT;ifii;jiii_Qgj‘iii_ggj‘iii_ggj
,.-. -.--