Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 32.4 kB
Pages: 4
Date: September 17, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 432 Words, 2,772 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/15263/245.pdf

Download Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 32.4 kB)


Preview Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 245

Filed 09/17/2004

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JOHN WARD Plaintiff v. ROBERT MURPHY, et al. Defendant : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:01CV1908 (AVC)

September 17, 2004

STATE DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY PLAINTIFF The Defendants, employees of the Department of Children and Families, Robert Murphy, Ralph Arnone, Roger Lima, Sandra Liquindoli and Edward Federci, (hereinafter, "State Defendants") herein object to the plaintiff's motion to the court requesting that the court reconsider it decision to grant the state-defendants' motion for summary judgment. The grounds for said objection are as follows: (1) The issues presented by the state-defendants' motion for summary judgment were

carefully and thoroughly considered and the decision rendered consistent with the law as applied to the undisputed facts of this case. (2) The plaintiff's motion to reconsider does not present any new arguments, it does not cite

to any new law, nor does it claim that new facts or circumstances have come to light. As such the plaintiff's motion should not be considered. (3) The plaintiff makes reference to the records of the Superior Court of the State of

Connecticut for Juvenile Matters in relation to the Department of Children and Families' petition that gave rise to this lawsuit. This record is currently under seal and there has been no motion

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 245

Filed 09/17/2004

Page 2 of 4

requesting and no order unsealing the record. As such, plaintiff's references to the juvenile court record are improper and should not be considered by the court. Wherefore, the State Defendants respectfully object to the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and respectfully request that the motion be denied and the state defendants' objection be sustained.

STATE DEFENDANTS BY: RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:

_________________________________ Carolyn Signorelli Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No.ct 17534 55 Elm Street, 3rd Fl. Annex Hartford, CT 06l06 Tel: (860) 808-5160 Fax: (860) 808-5384 e-mail:[email protected]

2

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 245

Filed 09/17/2004

Page 3 of 4

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed in accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this 17th day of September, 2004, first class postage prepaid to: Mr. John Ward 18 Garmella Boulevard Danbury, CT 06810 Benjamin Potock, Esq. Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss & Mulcahey, P.C. 10 Middle Street Bridgeport, CT 06604

_______________________________ Carolyn Signorelli Assistant Attorney General

Case 3:01-cv-01908-AVC

Document 245

Filed 09/17/2004

Page 4 of 4