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

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 38

Filed 07/15/2005

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ********************************* EMMANUEL SMITH * * Plaintiff * V. * * FLEET BANK * * Defendant * *********************************

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:03-CV-1052 (DJS)

JULY 14, 2005

DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant files this Memorandum of Law in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Amendment of Judgment, dated July 7, 2005. In addition to the arguments set forth herein, Defendant also incorporates the arguments set forth in Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's Complaint or for Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, which Memorandum is dated April 12, 2005.

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 38

Filed 07/15/2005

Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff argues that the Anunzio-Wylie Act does not provide Defendant with immunity for reporting crimes, when the reports are made to private citizens. What Plaintiff overlooks, however, is that there is no claim or evidence that Defendant reported any crime to any private individual. First, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant disclosed financial records to "a state agency in Bridgeport and Stamford." There is no allegation that Defendant reported any crime to any private citizen. Second, the documents attached to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration establish that Defendant's investigator reported the crime only to the Stamford Police Department. There is nothing in those documents indicating that Defendant made any disclosure to a private individual. Plaintiff also argues that the immunity provided under the Anunzio-Wylie Act does not provide immunity for a federal Constitutional claim. Plaintiff's Complaint, however, makes no valid Constitutional claim against Defendant. Although the Complaint mentions the "fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination," there are no facts or law to support such a claim against Defendant Fleet Bank. As set forth in Defendant's Memorandum dated April 12, 2005, Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and Defendant is also immune from any liability by virtue of 31 U.S.C. §5318(g)(3) and 31 CFR §103.18(e). Therefore, there is no basis for modifying or amending the judgment entered by this Court. 2

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 38

Filed 07/15/2005

Page 3 of 4

For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and/or Amendment of Judgment. DEFENDANT, FLEET BANK

By______________________________ Gerald L. Garlick, Esq. of Krasow, Garlick & Hadley, LLC One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 549-7100 Facsimile: (860) 728-1651 Email: [email protected] Federal Bar No ct05627

3

Case 3:03-cv-01052-DJS

Document 38

Filed 07/15/2005

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed this 14th day of July, 2005 to the following Pro Se Plaintiff: Mr. Emmanuel Smith Inmate No. 232549 Osborne Correctional Institution 335 Bilton Road P.O. Box 100 Somers, CT 06071

____________________________ Gerald L. Garlick

000233/00054/lib002/24039.1

4