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

Case 3:03-cv-00419-MRK

Document 39

Filed 05/21/2004

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

AUGUST PEZZENTI, JR., Individually and as next friend of his minor son, ANTHONY PEZZENTI, and JOHN C. MAYBEN VS. JOSEPH CAPALDO and MICHAEL KRUPA

: : : : : : : : :

NO. 3:03CV419 (MRK)

MAY 20, 2004

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This supplemental brief is submitted in response to a question posed during oral argument on May 18, 2004. The Court generally inquired why if in Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2nd Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098 (2000) a temporary separation of six or seven hours of child from parent was not severe enough interference to constitute a violation of substantive due-process the same amount of time would constitute enough interference in this case. The facts of this case are similar to the facts of Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2nd Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098 (2000), with respect to the temporary separation of child from parent. In both cases the children were separated from their parents for approximately seven hours. In Tenenbaum the Second Circuit addressed the 1

Case 3:03-cv-00419-MRK

Document 39

Filed 05/21/2004

Page 2 of 3

plaintiff's substantive due-process argument stating in relevant part: "The temporary separation of Sarah from her parents did not result in the Tenenbaums' wholesale relinquishment of their right to raise Sarah. The interference was not severe enough to constitute a violation of their substantive due-process rights. . . . The Tenenbaums ask us to extrapolate from Langer and Davis a rule that the separation of child and parent for a short period of time, no matter what procedural protections accompany it, constitutes a violation of the right to family integrity. There is no basis for us to do so." Id. at 601. The substantive due process issue addressed in the Tenenbaum case appears to control this case as well.

2

Case 3:03-cv-00419-MRK

Document 39

Filed 05/21/2004

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted:

_____________________________________ CHRISTY H. DOYLE (ct23458) Williams and Pattis, LLC 51 Elm Street New Haven, CT 06510 Tel: 203-562-9931 Fax: 203.776.9494 E-Mail: [email protected] Plaintiffs' Attorney

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE On the date above stated, a copy hereof was faxed to Attorneys Melanie A. Dillon and Thomas R. Gerarde at Howd & Ludorf, 65 Wethersfield Avenue, Hartford, CT 06114.

_____________________________________ CHRISTY H. DOYLE

3