Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 42.7 kB
Pages: 1
Date: March 9, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 315 Words, 1,986 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/21972/139.pdf

Download Order - District Court of Connecticut ( 42.7 kB)


Preview Order - District Court of Connecticut
1"_"`_“TT"“` —_—_m1
,/ Case 3:03-cv-00109-AVC Document 139 Filed O3/08/2004 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUF1T _ 1
1 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT =
,1, ·L.1 1
1 DUTKIEWICZ, et al, Pro se : CIVIL ACT`IO1*1I"NUM E ~_ 1 .1 1
1 Plaintiffs 2 . ‘ ._.1·;;1g· _[; ` C 4 `
1 : 3:03-CV-10915 1
1 Vs. : I ` 1
1 BONNIE MASKERY, etal, Pro se I
RAINBOW IN A TEAR WORKSHOPS, LLC : 1
Qefendants : September 4,1 2003 1
. l
OD 1 1 I
S1 EFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DENY PLAINTlFFS’ OTION FOR 1
F I``- i DEFAULT ON DEFENDANTS BONNIE MASK =RY AND
my r Gr _ RAINBOW IN A TEAR WORKSHOPS L C |
r. . ~ . 1 1
;’;;;In suigport of this motion by the Defendant Bonnie l\/iskery ("I1i1askery"), please find 1
yn _ EE I 1
[5ttJache¢__ga true and accurate copy of the instrument for the prope1ri Bling of APPEARANCE 1
by Maskeiy as a Pro se Defendant that was executed on March 2003. For the purposes
of this motion, this page has been numbered "3-for 9-4-03 By BJl1lI". This instrument also 1
15 appears as entry "3/4/03 15" on the Docket PROSE. 1.
.1 I, • 1
_ i _ 1 in support of this motion by the Defendant Rainbow in A Tear Workshops, LLC ("RiATW, 1
It • I I
_ 11§:11i1_ D LLC"), Nlaskery is still in the process of trying to put in place a Fe1ieral Attorney at Law to
JJ 1 .f "
§ . - 1 E defend the claim made against RIATW, LLC, as a corporation carhhot, bylaw, be a Pro se 1
wi 1 2 1
o 1 g1 8 Défendant.
E S In support of the Defendants’ Motion To Deny Plaintiffs’ Motior11For Default On 1
Z " ro I E
E 1 E Defendants ......... the statement made by the Plaintiffs regarding the Hling of an answer to 1
S T the complaint by Defendants was addressed in a motion tiled on August 1, 2003 which was 1
0 · 1 _
N Q "DEFENQANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RQSPONSIVE PLEADING, i
as 0
Q I
SZ! CG ‘
U O ~
Li
Q 3%
I