Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 48.3 kB
Pages: 1
Date: March 9, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 336 Words, 2,310 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/21972/143.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut ( 48.3 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of Connecticut
1 gyfase 3:03-cv-00109-AVC Document 143 Filed O3/08/3004 Page 1 of 1 1
--—— 1 1
= 1 1 1
1 1
“ 1
1 I
1 ‘ 1
13 -5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . __ 1 · 3 1 -‘ .1 1 1 ’
U E DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 1 ` - ·- 1~1 · 1 ~ 11* `·“ ‘ 1 1
uu L1 1 1
°° `E} 1
2 "EE THOMAS DUTKIEWICZ, ET AL., : CIVIL ACTION NUM F{ 1
3 1-l-l 1 1 1
13 O Plaintiffs, 1 s;o3cv1o9 (AVC) W 1
1*1 if 1 v. : 1
Q Q STATE CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT :
0) U] (E?E`¤.CHIIIIjREN—AND FAMILIES, ET AL. 2 Q
-¤‘ E 1 `A`` 1 [1.- 1 Defendants. : JULY 18, 20(1)3
>_| 3 11 1 I C'} Z 1
11 ‘° 11 ·?i1·1:1;· .1..- 2
Tg :1 11 1 , DEFENDANTS Honour: AND cLAR1<·s
E1 o gg 1 · MOTION TO DISMISS ` 1
rv E 11 gi T 1 1
E ·§ 11 Pursuant to F,R.C.P. l2(b)(6), defendants Delbert Hodder, M.D.1("Hodder") and Carolyn
zi as 11 16 _ _
“° ’g,'.» F;11 Q; dClark, M1D. ("Clark"), move to dismiss the claims asserted by Tho1na1;1Dutkiewicz, Aimee
tu E —-- .:1 . 1
O ui 1 1
1*1 Z J 1 ;iDutkiewicz, minor Benjamin Dutkiewicz, minor Madolin Dutkiewicz1and minor Garth Dutkiewicz 1
'U CG · 1_ 1
1§ ij : 1 rQi(collectively, the "Plaintiffs") for failure to state a claim upon which rizlief can be granted. 1
K5 TU -1 1 ‘ ¤—·—I · I
g S 1 - 1 § The plaintiffs’ constitutional claims fail to state a claim because 1there is no allegation that Drs. 1
an to Q · 0 1 1 1
E L - odder and Clark were state actors. The claim under Conn. Gen. Stati 1§ 20-7c fails to state a claim Q
O Li · 1 1 1
112 § E because the statute confers no private cause of action for damages andl there is no allegation that the 1
1-1 1 - 1 1
E O H-I 1 I ` 1
E Q plaintiffs were required to pay any amount beyond the statutory cap to1 copy their medical records. 1
E-! U] 1
*1; Finally, the p1aintiffs’ claims based upon the disclosure of records made by the moving defendants to 1
qi 1§ 1 2
O CZ
O GJ 1 1 _
(`\l Ll-I Q 1 1
CU itil 1 1 1
-— *0 · an 1 1 1
CD U] Bil 1 i
.¤ I2 .2 2 11 1 A 1 1
0 JJ E O 1
fg C O 11 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 1 ‘ 1
2 T1 an no 11 I 1 1
1
1 1
1 1
11 1 1
· __; 1 -Y_ - -;_ - L ---.