Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 72

Filed 07/24/2007

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

KELLY PHANEUF, Plaintiff, v. ROSE MARIE CIPRIANO, DORENE M. FRAIKIN, KATHLEEN BINKOWSKI, TOWN OF PLAINVILLE and PLAINVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendants.

: : : : : : : : : : : : :

Civil No. 3:03CV00372 (AVC)

JULY 23, 2007

PLAINTIFF'S LOCAL RULE 56 (a) (2) STATEMENT Pursuant to District of Connecticut Local Rule 56 (a) (2), the plaintiff, Kelly Phaneuf, submits the following Statement and Disputed Issues in support of her Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment dated May 18, 2007. 1. Statement as to Whether the Facts Asserted by the Defendants are Admitted or Denied.

1. 2. 3.

The statement made by the defendants is admitted. The statement made by the defendants is admitted. The statement made by the defendants is admitted.

1

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 72

Filed 07/24/2007

Page 2 of 5

4.

The statement made by the defendants is denied to the extent that the defendants cite to "28 U.S.C. §1983," and make an unsupported statement, namely, "motion as to the federal causes of action." (Docket No. 39.) The plaintiff admits that the this Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law causes of action.

5.

The plaintiff admits that she re-filed her state law causes of action in the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, in order to preserve the statute of limitation on said claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and admits the remaining statements made by the defendants in said paragraph.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

The statement made by the defendants is admitted. The statement made by the defendants is admitted. The statement made by the defendants is admitted. The statement made by the defendants is admitted. The plaintiff admits that she did not file an appeal of the Superior Court's decision to grant summary judgment as to her state law claims.

11.

The plaintiff admits that the Second Circuit vacated the granting of summary judgment by the District Court, on or about May 19, 2006, and that it remanded the case to the District Court, as it relates to the plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim

2

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 72

Filed 07/24/2007

Page 3 of 5

and other federal constitutional claims, but denies that it was in relation to a claim asserted pursuant to "28 U.S.C. § 1983." (Docket No. 46.) 12. The plaintiff admits that this Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, however, the Court's ruling encompassed more than the mere denial with respect to the plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim. (See Docket No. 49.) 13. The plaintiff admits that the defendants moved for reconsideration as it relates to the invasion of privacy claim, on or about February 14, 2007, on the ground that the state court granted summary judgment in connection with the plaintiff's remaining state law claims, which included the invasion of privacy claim. 14. The plaintiff admits that this Court granted the defendants' motion for reconsideration on or about March 23, 2007, and that the remaining language in said statement is contained in the Court's ruling. (Docket No. 55.) 2. 1. Disputed Issues A genuine issue exists as to whether the plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and other federal constitutional claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 2. A genuine issue exists as to whether the plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and other federal constitutional claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

3

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 72

Filed 07/24/2007

Page 4 of 5

The plaintiff also relies upon her arguments and the cases relied upon in her Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, in support of her claim that genuine issues exist with respect to the defendants' claims and, therefore, the Court should deny the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

THE PLAINTIFF, KELLY PHANEUF

By:______/s/________________________________ Sheila J. Hall (ct 22566) Gesmonde, Pietrosimone & Sgrignari, L.L.C. 3127 Whitney Avenue Hamden, CT 06518-2344 (203) 407-4200

4

Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC

Document 72

Filed 07/24/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, via first class, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of July, 2007 to: James G. Williams, Esq. Williams, Walsh & O'Connor, LLC 110 Washington Avenue, Second Floor North Haven, CT 06473

/s/ Sheila J. Hall

5