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

ase 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 108 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DlS'I`RIC'I` OF CONNECTICUT
CLIFTON S. FREILDMAN, )
}
Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 3:[)3C\/I048 (PCD)
v. )
)
THE TOWN OF FAIRFIELD, )
D}j`l"I;CTlVE WILLIAM YOUNG AND )
DETECTIVE DAVID BENSEY )
(Individually and in their official capacities ) OCTOBER 21, 2005
as police officers for the Town of Fairfield,) )
)
I)ef`endants. )
DEFE-NDANl`S’ OBJECTION TO PLAlNTlFF’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR A'I"l`ORNEYS’ FEES
The Defendants The Town of Fairfield, Detective William Young, and
Detective David Bensey, (Individually and in their ofHcial capacity as police officers
Ibr the Town of Fairfield), hereby object to the Plaintiffs Motion for Extension of
Time for which to tile a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure
54(d)(2)(B) clearly states, "UnIess otherwise provided by statute or order ofthe court,
the motion must be tiled no later than 14 days alter entry of_judgrnent;" Judgment in
the instant case was entered on September 28, 2005. The plaintiff at this time is not
entitled to attorneys` fees, as thejury entercdjudgment in favor ofthe defendants on
all counts. Courts have held that the denial of attorneys’ fees is well within the
discretion ofthe coun. "On the other hand, we have held that the denial of attorneys`
tees was not an abuse of discretion where the plaintiff recovered only nominal
damages and received no other meaningful relief" McCardle v. Haddad, I3] I·`.3d 43,
(2"lj Cir. I I.-’2I.»*`199?). The jury in the above captioned matter clearly awarded

ase 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 108 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 2 of 3
nominal damages to the plaintiff, and that award only came at the insistence of Judge
Dorsey based upon a previous ruling granting Summary Judgment for the plaintiff`.
Even if the tilectronic Communications Privacy Act contains a minimum line in
excess ofthe one dollar awarded by the jury, it was the clear and unequivocal intent
of the _] urors in this case to return a verdict in favor of the defendants.
WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully request that the Motion for
Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys’ Fees be denied.
THE DEFENDAN’1‘s
/2 / to C
Byi `
Walter A. Shalvoy,ilr. 25l32_)
Maher & Murtha, LLC
528 Clinton Avenue
· Bridgeport, CT 06605
(203) 363*-23*00

‘ ase 3:03-cv-01048-PCD Document 108 Filed 10/21/2005 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing has been sent via first-class mail,
postage prepaid on this 2iSt clay ot` October 2005 to the following:
Daniel J. Klau, Esq.
Pepe & Hazard LLP
Goodwin Square
225 Asylum Street
Harttbrcl, CT 06103-4302
Fax No: 860-522-2796
Ialter A. Shalvoy, Jr.