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

- 2
3 = O§5‘§@33?@3‘-’4\;V¤D)03Y2HA1\¢i65y QA ¢UVU9'2tO7C?B. FTIHQ Q§(>(t1i§>g0§s gggrlgngf This
is an action for damages alleging violations of the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants move for summary
judgment, based on the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
estoppel. The plaintiff argues that the federal causes of action
are not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel.
On July 29, 2004, this court granted summary judgement to
the defendants on the federal causes of action after concluding
that the search in question was reasonable, and declined to
exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state claims. On August
31, 2004, the plaintiff appealed that ruling to the Second
Circuit. The plaintiff also re—filed the state claims in state
court. Gn May 31, 2005, while the federal appeal was still
pending,Jthe state court dismissed the state claims, basing its
“ decision on the reasoning employed by this court in its July 29,
2004, ruling. On May 19, 2006, the Second Circuit ruled on the
appeal, and upon concluding that the search in question was not
reasonable vacated this court’s July 29, 2004, ruling.
" Res judicata “preclude later litigation if [an] earlier
decision was (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) by a court
of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving the same
parties or their privies, and (4) involving the same cause of
action." In re Teltronics Svcs., Inc., 762 F.2d 185, 190 (2d
I Cir. 1985). The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents
“relitigating an issue . . . previously litigated and lost.”
Faulkner v. Nat’l Geographic Enters., 409 F.3d 26, 37 (2d. Cir.
2005). However, an intervening change of law may render the
application of collateral estoppel inappropriate. Id;
The court concludes that the federal causes of action,
remanded to this court by the Second Circuit, are not barred by
the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel based on the
state court’s decision on the state claims. Given the pendency
of the federal appeal at the time of the state court’s decision,
the court concludes that the application of res judicata is not
appropriate. Furthermore, given the intervening change or
clarification of law relating, at least, to the federal causes of
action, the court concludes that it is inappropriate to apply
collateral estoppel. The motion for summary judgment (document
no. 61) is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
A I I /'\ I A (7
Alfred . Covello, U.S.D.J.

· 02/01/2008 Page 2 ¤i 2
Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC Document 74 Flléd
Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC Document 61 Filed 05/18/2007 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

KELLY PHANEUF, :
Plaintiff, Civil No. 3:03CV00372 (AVC)
v.
ROSE MARIE CIPRIANO, DORENE M.
FRAIKIN, KATHLEEN BINKOWSKI, :
TOWN OF PLAINVILLE and PLAINVILLE :
BOARD OF EDUCATION, :
Defendants. MAY 18, 2007

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants,
Town of Plainville and Plainville Board of Education, ln the above referenced action,
hereby respectfully move for Summary Judgment Summary Judgment as to Count One
of the plaintiff’s Complaint. The defendants respectfully submit that there are not
genuine issues of material fact and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. As is articulated in the supporting Memorandum of Law accompanying this
Motion, the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
estoppel.
-1-
Williams, Walsh & O'Connor, LLC
110 Washington Ave11ue, Second Floor
North Haven, CT 06473
(Tel) 203-23+6333 (Fax) 203-234-6330
Juris No. 421162