Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

" ""`"""""""'"""""_"""""""""—`—"`d""`—""'°`t I I I
Case 3:03-cv-00441-JCH Document 58 Filed 06/28/2004 Page 1 of 4 I
. I I
I m I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURF I},. .
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT `“"“' I
), Zllllll JUN 28 ID I2° U-I I
STANLEY CHANCE, ) CASE NO. 3:03 CV 441 IJCII-I), Z
Plaintiff ) Il_&}.U1SIR|C C ..-_ gil I
VS ) E3I*lIOGEI°0llT. Cue
> . I I I I
1 Defendant ) JUNE 24, 2004 I E I
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION I I
TO PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION" I
On May 24, 2004, after oral argument, the Court granted the motion of defendant I
Connecticut Healthcare Worker’s Compensation Trust ("CHWCT") to dismiss this case for lack
of jurisdiction, based on plaintiffs failure to exhaust his remedies through the Connecticut I
Workers' Compensation Commission. The Court issued and explained its ruling from the bench, I I
without a written order. Plaintiff has now filed a "Motion for Writ of Execution," which CHWCT I
I · I
construes to be a motion for relief from judgment or order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and which
it opposes for the following reasons.1 I _
= I
I. PLA1NTIFF'S MOTION DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR A MOTION FOR I I
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER I I
Motions for relief from a judgment or order are governed by Rule 60(b) ofthe Federal . I I
Rules of Civil Procedure. According to that rule, a court may relieve a party from an order for I
the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly I
I
discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct of the opposing party; (4) the
_ I
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED I I I
l. Plaintiffs motion bears the date of June l, 2004. However, according to his certification statement, he mailed the
motion to the undersigned on June 8, 2004, so that this memorandum is timely under Local Rule '/(a). I
I I
_, ___p g _ - ‘ .... I

A. l
Case 3:03-cv-00441-JCH Document 58 Filed 06/28/2004 Page 2 of 4 \
. l
\ judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; or (6) any other i
reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment or order. As interpreted bythe U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Rule 60(b) provides "extraordinary" relief; and therefore
may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. A party's mere dissatisfaction p (
with the result is insufficient to justify relief from a court order, and Rule 60(b) "may not be used ’
as a substitute for a timely appeal." Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir. 1986). p
Plaintiffs motion does not come close to satisfying any of these standards for relief. Once p
again, plaintiff is seeking an order "awarding [him] benents," but this is precisely the reason why I i
the Court already ruled that his claims were barred by the exhaustion doctrine. Although his j j
motion is difficult to construe, plaintiff has provided no legitimate reason why the Court's order
i .
should be reversed. There is nothing in his new statement that constitutes a valid basis for l l
reopening this case under Rule 60(b), because of any mistake, fraud, newly discovered evidence, p
etc. The Court properly considered the legal issues in evaluating CHWCT's motion to dismiss, `
and the Court properly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction because plaintiff had failed to exhaust his I
administrative remedies under the Connecticut Workers' Compensation Act. See Cannata v. i
I A I
@B, 215 Conn. 616, 622 (1990) ("it is a settled principle of administrative law that if an j
adequate administrative remedy exists, it must be exhausted before the Court will obtain - >
jurisdiction to act in the matter"); Lopiano v. City of Stamford, 22 Conn. App. 591, 595 (1990) i
("a case must be dismissed if an administrative avenue of redress remains untried"); Trigila v. i
217 Conn. 490, 493—94 (1991) (failure to exhaust remedies deprives court of N
jurisdiction under Connecticut law). .
l 3
i
2 l l
l i

I I
Case 3:03-cv-00441-JCH Document 58 Filed 06/28/2004 Page 3 of 4 I
By way of his "Motion for Writ of Execution," plaintiff continues his attempts to sidestep I
a workers' compensation system that was specifically designed to address his grievances about I I I
benefits. The Court has already ruled that such an attempt was not proper, and that it lacked
jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims, and that ruling should stand. I
CONCLUSION I I
For these reasons, defendant Connecticut Healthcare Workers' Compensation Trust I I
respectfully requests that the Court deny plaintiffs "Motion for Writ of Execution," and that its I I
dismissal of all claims against this defendant remain in force. I I
I I
DEFENDANT I i
CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE WORKERS I I I
COMPENSATION TRUST I I I
. I I
By" I I
drew A. Cohen, ct07l24 I
Anne K Mi11ham,et13s79 I I
Letizia, Ambrose & Falls, P.C.
One Church St. I I
New Haven, CT 06510 I
(203) 787-7000 I
I
I
? I *
I
I
I S I
I
I
I
I E
I I
` I
T“""";[‘ "·

. ' I
Case 3:03-cv-00441-JCH Document 58 Filed 06/28/2004 Page 4 of 4 E I
. I ` I ,
CERTIFICATION I ~
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed this 24th day of June, 2004 I
by first class mail, postage prepaid, to all counsel of record and pro se parties, as follows:
I 3 g
Stanley Chance E .
99 Jetland Street I Z I
Bridgeport, CT 06605 , .
Pro Se Plaintiff ’
Julie D. Blake 2 I
Rome, McGuigan, Sabanosh : I
One State Street, l3"‘ Floor g I
Hartford, CT 06103-3101 , I I
Mark J. Clatlin E
Howd & Ludorf E .
65 Wethersfield Ave.
Hanford, CT 06114-1190 ,
Kent B. Hanson ¤
Lezlie Ott Marek I
Hanson, Marek, Bolkcom & Greene, Ltd. I {
2200 Rand Tower I P
527 Marquette Avenue ` ;
Minneapolis, MN 55402 l N
I
drew A. Cohen `
I
3 I
I I I
I é F
I e §
. I
/ I
@ .
J I
";[;";"` ·