Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC Document 124 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
THOMAS O’CONNOR * CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:00 CV 339 (RNC)
Plaintiff, I
V. :
LYNNE B. PIERSON, et al. *
*·k·•9¢$IFsE¢I·Ii·`9g¢§=f!]¢'E\·§·;¢·I¢·I¢*1:·k**·k·k*·k·k·k·k*·k*************·: F E B 2 3 ’ 6
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Under date of January 13, 2006, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. This motion should be struck and disallowed, and this case should be set
down for an immediate trial.
The first reason defendants' motion for summary judgment should be struck is
because the defendants completely ignored Subsection (b) of the court’s Order On
Pretrial Deadlines. It is the court’s standing order that:
Before a party files a... motion for summary judgment, a prefiling conference @
be held. A party wishing to file such a motion must submit a letter to chambers
requesting a prefiling conference and briefly describing the nature and basis of
the proposed motion. The letter must be submitted no later than 45 days before
the discovery deadline. Failure to request a prefiling conference v@_resuIt in
the waiver of the right to file a motion.
(emphasis added)
The court should enforce its own rules. And since the defendants failed to
submit a letter to chambers no later than 45 days before the discovery deadline, and
before filing the motion, the defendants have waived the right to file the motion.
The second reason defendants' motion for summary judgment should be struck

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC Document 124 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 2 of 4
is because the plaintiff should be afforded his right to a trial by jury as soon as possible.
If the court entertains the defendants' motion, it will delay the trial for at least a year, and
the plaintiff has already been waiting six years to put his case before a jury. He should
not have to wait any longer. As former British Prime Minister Gladstone put it, "Justice
delayed is justice denied," and it is respectfully submitted that the court should not
permit further denial of the plaintiffs access to justice.
The third reason defendants' motion for summary judgment should be struck is
that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled against the defendants on
the same issue they raise in their summary judgment motion. ln their appeal, the
defendants argued the plaintiff was precluded by the state court case from pursuing his
claim in federal court. The Second Circuit held the defendants had waived the
affirmative defense of claim preclusion. See O’Connor v. Pierson, et al., 426 F. 3d 187,
195 (2005).
The fourth reason is related to the second. The District Court has already spent
countless hours on the pretrial motions in this case and should not have to spend
countless hours more. The court should consenre its resources by setting this matter
down for trial and following the very detailed roadmap the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals has laid out. If the defendants have valid arguments, they can be dealt with at
a later time.
The fifth reason goes to the merits of the defendants' motion. Defendants'
argument is meritless. Their argument is based on Migra v. Warren City School Dist.
Bd. Of Ed., 465 U.S. 75 (1984). Mjgjg held that a federal court must apply the state
2

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC Document 124 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 3 of 4
court’s rules of res judicata, and, in that Ohio case, state law would have barred the
federal case. But Connecticut's res judicata allows a plaintiff to bring federal claims in
federal court and simultaneously to bring state claims in state court. As a matter of fact,
this is the law of the case. Connecticut Superior Court Judge Hale ruled on August 13,
2001 that there was no impediment to the plaintiffs proceeding simultaneously in
federal and state court, and Judge Hale denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Additionally, the defendants’ motion is based on the supposition that the defendants in
the federal case were the same as in the state case. But Pierson, the principal
defendant in this federal case, was not a defendant in the state case.
THE PLAINTIFF,

Leon M. Rosenbla
Law Offices of Leon M. Rosenblatt
10 N. Main Street
West Hartford, CT 06107
(860) 523-8066
Federal Bar No. ct 000284
3

Case 3:00-cv-00339-RNC Document 124 Filed 02/24/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, on this
the 23rd day of February, 2006 to:
Attorney Michael J. Rose
Attorney Alexandra Voccio
Howd & Ludorf
65 Wethersfield Ave.
Hartford, CT 06114 ,
L on . osenblatt ‘l‘‘ A
4