Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cv-01302-JCH

Document 483

Filed 09/14/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SHAWN POULIOT Plaintiff v. PAUL ARPIN VAN LINES, INC. et al. Defendants : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02 CV 1302 (JCH) JUDGE JANET C. HALL

September 13, 2005

DEFENDANTS PAUL ARPIN VAN LINES, INC.'S AND ARPIN LOGISTICS, INC.'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE RE: ADVERSE INFERENCE AS TO WAGES Defendants Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc. and Arpin Logistics, Inc. (hereinafter collectively "Arpin") hereby submit the following Reply to Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Arpin's Motion in Limine for an Adverse Inference as to Earnings. By its motion in limine, Arpin seeks an adverse inference with regard to Plaintiff's ability to work and earn an income because Plaintiff has failed to produce records relating to the parking lot striping business that he started with his brother in mid2004. Arpin does not dispute that Plaintiff has produced certain tax records relating to a corporation called GMAB, Inc. See Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine re: Adverse Inference as to Wages ("Plaintiff's Opposition"), at p. 1. GMAB, Inc., however, is not Plaintiff's parking lot striping business; rather, it is the corporation

Case 3:02-cv-01302-JCH

Document 483

Filed 09/14/2005

Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff formed to receive his Workers' Compensation benefits and pay his household bills. See Deposition of Mark A. Sipos, taken September 22, 2004 ("Sipos Dep."), at p. 38 (cited excerpts from Mr. Sipos's deposition are attached as Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff's Opposition). Plaintiff's parking lot striping business was a separate concern and may not have been incorporated. See Sipos Dep., at pp. 37-38. As set forth in Arpin's motion in limine, Plaintiff has failed to produce any of the requested records relating to his parking lot striping business. For this reason, and for the other reasons set forth in Arpin's motion in limine, Arpin respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion and rule that an adverse inference may be drawn with regard to Plaintiff's ability to work and earn an income. Dated September 13, 2005. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf Harold J. Friedman, Esq. CT 23785 Karen Frink Wolf, Esq. CT 26494 FRIEDMAN GAYTHWAITE WOLF & LEAVITT Six City Center, P.O. Box 4726 Portland, ME 04112-4726 (207) 761-0900 (207) 761-0186 (Fax) [email protected] [email protected]

2

Case 3:02-cv-01302-JCH

Document 483

Filed 09/14/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed via overnight mail this 13th day of September, 2005 to the following:

Michael A. Stratton, Esq. Stratton Faxon 59 Elm Street New Haven, CT 06510 Thomas J. Grady, Esq. Lenihan Grady & Steele 6 Canal Street PO Box 541 Westerly, RI 02891-0541 Daniel J. Krisch, Esq. Horton, Shields & Knox, P.C. 90 Gillett Street Hartford, CT 06105

Roland F. Moots, Jr., Esq. Moots, Pellegrini, Spillane & Mannion 46 Main Street, PO BOX 1319 New Milford, CT 06776-1319

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf Karen Frink Wolf, Esq. # 26494

3