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

' 1 l .
i [ 3:00-cv-00435-JCH Document 149 Fnled 04/29/2004 Page 1 of 1
1 1 i l
l M , SAcK, Spncrnon AND KARSTEN, LLP
5 - FA `INGTON AVENUE, SUITE 221 (860) 2;.;3_S251
' EST IIARi I ORD, C(`)I\TNECTIU[TT 061].9-.],544 FAX (3(;()i 232.8736
y , M 1 man APR 20 P Z ,2
‘ | NL ‘,____.
N1 ‘1 20, 2 M}; gg
* 1 BPJDGEPORT. ’—“§; FTS
i '::"}g,•'¤ m fj
_ H vorable Janet C. Hall QQJ QQ fm
UI ted States District Court Qgq QE
9`y Lafayette Boulevard pq; FU rm
B,idgeport, CT 05504 gr, T- cj
mg: L.
J 1 i 1 T""
l Dante l)cL0rct0 vs. Thomas Mitney, ct al. " (T
| Civ. Nu. 3:00CV435(JC.I:I)
1 1
l Deir Judge Hall:
% According to the electronic docket entry of April 15, 2004,
thwre has been filed in this case a “motion to reopen case",
dehket number 148. Please be advised that the undersigned has
neyer received a copy of any such motion to reopen, at least not
s hoe the last so—called “motion to reopen" was argued. Your
H for will recall that, at that argument, Mr. DeLoreto failed to E
appear.
* It is my understanding that there is no recognized basis
upin which this case could or should be reopened at this time.
Ho$ever, to the extent plaintiff attempts to set forth any
cliimed such basis, defendant Shaw objects to the case being
reipened. Further, in light of the history of this litigation
ain the currently pending appeal, this defendant respectfully
reyuests that he not be required to respond further to
p2iintiff’s motion docket number 148. The Court's consideration
o Mthis request is greatly appreciated.
f Respectfully submitted,
? Scott M. Karsten
SMP/amf ]
csi James N. Tallberg, Esquire
{ Patrick G. Alair, Esquire
. ii Mr. Dante DeLoreto
1N
.rrluli-,lilr,irLC_-_, i
21;1;111;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;¤;;»;;¤»¤;¤»AA-,-,r-i_c_,
;L;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Aif-A;,-;;--,-,A,,-L___,