Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00311-CFD Document 168 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
(Hartford)
)
JOHN E. COX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW HAVEN )
COMMISSION ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, )
) .
Plaintiff )
v. )
)
EDWARD L. BLAND in his official and individual capacities )
AND NEW HAVEN HOUSING AUTHORITY, )
) No. 3:00 CV 3il (CFD)
Defendant and Third Party Plaintiffs )
v. )
1
BEACON/CORCORAN, JENNESON, LP, STAMPORD )
WRECKTNG AND ANDREW CUOMO, SECRETARY FOR )
THE FEDERAL AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), )
)
p Third Party Defendants ) JUNE 21, 2006

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT BEACON/CORCORAN
JENNISON PARTNERS LLC IN RESPONSE TO STAMFORD WRECKING’S
OPPOSIT ION TO PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Third Party Defendant Beacon/Corcoran Jennison Partners LLC ("BCJ") submits this
memorandum in brief response to the opposition of Stamford Wrecking Company ("Stamford’”)
to BCJ’s proposed mernorandum of decision tiled May 19, 2006:
1. Contrary to Stamford’s assertion, BCJ’staternent that Stamford admitted ali
inateriais facts in BCJ’s Rule 9(c)(l) Staternenti is correct. Stamford purported to deny 1110 of
BCJ ’s Rule (c)(§) Statement, but in reality Stamford in essence admitted the facts stated `out
' BCJ’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on BCJ”s Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment on Counts li and ill ofthe Cross Claim of Third Party Defendant Stamford Wrecking Company
("Proposed Findings and Conc1usions"), page 3, n.1.

Case 3:00-cv-00311-CFD Document 168 Filed 06/21/2006 Page 2 of 2
added additional, disputed facts. Likewise, Stamford admitted the facts alleged in 1117 of BCQl’s
Rule 9(c)(1) Statement, but added its own explanatory statement of disputed facts. Neither of
those instances actually denied or placed into dispute the essential facts set forth in BCJ’s 111110
and l7. All other paragraphs in BC.i°s Rule 9(c)( 1) Statement were, as Stamford concedes,
admitted without further gloss by Stamford.
2. The fact that Stamford has submitted additional, disputed facts that it contends are
materiai does not prevent the granting of summary judgment to BCI. Resolution of those
disputed facts is not material to the decision of the legai issues as presented in BCJ’s motion. To
the extent that the Proposed Findings and Conclusions address Stani.ford’s disputed facts, it is to
show that under the disputed facts brought forward by Stamford, even if taken as true, Stamford
could not succeed on its misrepresentation claims as a matter of law.
Respectfully submitted,
THIRD PARTY DEPENDANT
BEACON/CORCORAN JENNISON
PARTNERS, LLC
By their attorneys,
//s// Janet Steckel Lundberg
Richard M. Bluestein (Fed Bar #ct23002)
Janet Stecltel Lundberg (Fed Bar iiict.23003)
KROKIDAS & BLUESTEIN LLP
600 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 482-7211
isvnoccuirssssi
2