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

Case 3:00-cv-00871-CFD Document 1 19 Filed 08/27/2004 Page 1 of 3 {

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ;1_ ·
(HARTFORD) " Sei? I
_ (·¤ D ¢·*·rr:;·¤
• r ,. _, PK) ;=..a
GREYSTONE COMMUNITY ; ` ‘ gi f ‘-J
REINVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., : CIVIL ACTION NO. ji;} V
Plaintiff, : 3:00-cv-svirciin) 5;;, gg Y;
T no
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK, :
Defendant. : AUGUST 24, 2004
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The plaintiff, Greystone Community Reinvestment Associates, Inc. (hereinafter "Greystone”),
respectfully objects pursuant to Local Rule 7 (c) to the defendant’s motion dated August 20, 2004 to
reconsider the Cotu·t’s Order dated August 9, 2004 granting Greystone’s motion to consolidate dated
October 8, 2003 for reason that it is untimely. Local Rule 7(c) requires that motions for
reconsideration "be filed and served within ten (10) days ofthe filing ofthe decision. Defendant’s
motion to reconsider was filed and served eleven (11) days of the tiling of the decision and is,
therefore, untimely.
Additionally, defendant has provided no matters or controlling decisions that the court has
overlooked. Specifically, the matters which are the subject of Greystone Community Reinvestment
Associates, Inc. v. Berean Capital, Inc., Civil Action N0. 302 CV 1703 (AWT) (Dist. of Ct.) have
been expressly made known to the Court in Greystone’s motion to consolidatel.
I. Curiously, First Union labels Greystone’s motion to consolidate highly suspect and “disingenuous"
because the Berean action was commenced in state court and then removed to federal court by Berean; overlooking
the fact that the First Union action was, likewise, commenced in state court and then removed by First Union to
l
I
eff;


. , Case 3:00-cv-00871-CFD Document 1 19 Filed 08/27/2004 Page 2 of 3 r
i
l
For these reasons, defendant’s motion to reconsider should be denied. I
PLAINTIFF,
GREY ONE COMMUNITY
RE E MENT ASSOCIATES, INC.
\
By:
Eliot B. Ge sten (ct0 1)
John]. Ro 'oynski (ctl5636)
Gersten lifford
214 Mai reet ,
Hartford, 06106
Tel: (860) 5 7-7044 N
Its Attorney
1
federal court. If anything is "disingenuous" as First Unic·n claims, it is their arguments. First Union further opposes
consolidation by means of ignoring the reason why Berean was brought into the litigation. As set forth in the First
Amended Complaint in the Berean action, it clear that Berean was contacted for a general release in order for the
settlement to proceed. First Union fails, however, to advise the Court that Berean was contacted because First Union
demanded their release. Having invited Berean to the party, First Union cannot in good faith now object to allowing
Berean to dance. Further, shortly after receiving the release request, Berean tiled the NASD arbitration against First
Union. In this regard, First Union fails to inform the Court that Greystone had no independent right to intervene in
the NASD arbitration and neither First union nor Berean saw fit to include Greystone. y
i
I

, _ , _ Case 3:00-cv-00871-CFD Document 1 19 Filed 08/27/2004 Page 3 of 3 f
I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on August 24, 2004, a copy ofthe foregoing wasmailed, postage
prepaid, to the following:
James T. Shearin, Esq. The Honorable William I. Gartinkel
Brian C. Roche, Esq. United States District Court
Pullman & Comley LLC 915 Lafayette Boulevard
850 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06604
P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
Thomas J. Finn, Esq, ,
MoCarter & English LLP
CityPlaoe I
185 Asylum Street I
Hartford, CT 06103
I <
John J. ob cynski I