Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00998-JGM

Document 47

Filed 01/25/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
SANTIAGO E. CARTAGENA, Plaintiff, VS. THAMES VALLEY WATER BOTTLING CO., INC. D/B/A MANITOCK SPRINGS Defendant. : : : : : : : : : CIVIL CASE NO. 3:03cv998(JGM)

JANUARY 24, 2005

REPLY OF FORMER COUNSEL, THOMAS W. BUCCI, TO THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Without expressing a position on the merits of the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, plaintiff's former counsel is compelled to dispel various misstatements contained in the plaintiff's motion. First, neither the plaintiff's former counsel nor his secretary ever conducted a debate with Mr. Cartagena over attorney fees. The only issue the plaintiff and his former attorney debated was the plaintiff's failure to respond to outstanding discovery requests. The plaintiff's former counsel informed the plaintiff on numerous occasions that he was jeopardizing his case by failing to produce documents, including his tax returns, which had been the subject of various production requests. Plaintiff's former counsel never argued with the plaintiff over attorney fees. In fact, at the settlement conference, plaintiff's former counsel, in an effort to reach a settlement, agreed to substantially reduce his fees. Plaintiff's former counsel and his secretary did not intimidate, threaten or harass Mr. Cartagena at any time.

Case 3:03-cv-00998-JGM

Document 47

Filed 01/25/2005

Page 2 of 3

The plaintiff's former counsel served the following documents on the plaintiff as evidenced by the copies of the communications and the signed postal return receipts: 1. October 21, 2004 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Plaintiff, Santiago Cartagena (Exhibit 1); 2. Covering letter dated November 16, 2004 with a copy of the November 10, 2004 Order of Judge Joan Glazer Margolis (Exhibit 2); 3. Covering letter dated January 3, 2005 with a copy of the December 22, 2004 Ruling of Judge Joan Glazer Margolis (Exhibit 3). The December 22, 2004 Ruling of Judge Margolis was sent to Mr. Cartagena on January 3, 2005, since the Ruling was not received by the plaintiff's counsel until after December 27, 2004. The Court's docket report indicates that the Ruling was dated December 22, 2004, but not entered until December 27, 2004. With the intervening holidays, the Ruling was not sent out until January 3, 2005. THE PLAINTIFF ­ SANTIAGO CARTAGENA ______________________________________ Thomas W. Bucci, for WILLINGER, WILLINGER & BUCCI, P.C. 855 Main Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203) 366-3939 Fax: (203) 337-4588 Fed. Bar #ct07805 Email: [email protected]

Case 3:03-cv-00998-JGM

Document 47

Filed 01/25/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on the 24th day of January, 2005, a copy of the foregoing Reply, was sent by first class mail to the following: Richard J. Pascal, Esquire O'BRIEN SHAFNER, STUART, KELLY & MORRIS, P.C. 138 Main Street P.O. Box 310 Norwich, CT 06360 Tel: (860) 889-3855 Fax: (860) 886-6352 Fed. Bar # ct03151 AND BY CERTIFIED MAIL ARTICLE NO. 7003 1010 0003 3539 4935 Santiago Cartagena 103-1 Brookside Lane Pawcatuck, CT 06379 ___________________________________ Thomas W. Bucci