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


File Size: 105.1 kB
Pages: 4
Date: March 17, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 874 Words, 5,516 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/21981/78.pdf

Download Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut ( 105.1 kB)


Preview Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:03-cv-00&8-MRK Document 78 Filed 0363/2004 Page 1 of 4
L) i I
* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ‘
LORI RAYMOND, CARMEN GONZALEZ, CIVIL ACTION NO. 303 V 0118 (MRK) Q
MIGDALIA MENDEZ, KIMBERLY DADE, :
MARY PAVLIK, DARRYL PAULDING,
TERRI KEATON, ELMORE SWEET,
JUDITH SHEPAUM, GLORIA GORDON, _ ,
KAREN MORIN and DONNA MCMAHON : ig; J
Plaintyjk we ,,,, · l __%_
Individually and as representatives I .....i,l
of all persons similarly situated : if " V"'
V. 1 nsarn s in a
$+4 xii I ‘¥fi`?»`>·‘ l
JOHN ROWLAND, Governor of : it iij E
Connecticut, PATRICIA WILS ON-COKER Y $3* E
Commissioner of the Connecticut
Department of Social Services, : Q
In their official capacities, l
Defendants i
: March 16, 2004
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION OF MOTIONS OF SUNDRA EVA . AND ELENA
SIERRA TO INTERVENE 1
The plaintiffs have moved to intervene two additional individuals, Sund ’ 4: Evans and
Elena Sierra, as plaintiffs in this case. These two additional intervenors are in ai dition to
proposed intervenor Ariel Lopez, whose motion to intervene is pending before u i is Court. The
defendant objects to intervention of these two additional proposed intervenors ei sentially on the
same grounds that the defendant objected to the proposed intervention of Ariel opez: the
complaints of intervention are untimely, unnecessary, and will further delay an complicate the
proceeding by requiring additional discovery.
This action was tiled on January 16, 2003. Pursuant to Paragraph 2(a) _i the standard 1
Order on Scheduling in Civil Cases, unless otherwise ordered by the presiding l·dge, all motions l
· 1
related to joinder of parties were due with 60 days after the filing of the Compl. nt, or by March `
l
| i
i

l "T"——“1
Case 3:03-cv-00E?-MRK Document 78 Filed 0305/2004 Page ·. of 4
' 17, 20003. The parties’ March 4, 2003 Planning Meeting Report jointly reques d a deadline of
April 15, 2003 to file motions to join additional parties or to file motions to am ` d the pleadings. i
l l
The scheduling order issued by Judge Arterton on April ll, 2003 was silent on ; ¤i e question of a
deadline of rejoinder of parties, and provided that any amended pleading must tiled by April
29, 2003. S1nce the Scheduling Order of April l1, 2003, did not modify the de ·• l1ne for joinder _
of parties set by the Standard Order, the 60 day deadline (from the filing of the ( omplaint), or
March 17, 2003 remains in effect. The motions to intervene Sundra Evans and lena Sierra are
filed gigs; E @ _@· @ @ adc@g Q ]_ , and should be d i ied accordingly
as untimely. 1 R
The fact that a motion for class certification is pending (based upon the rst amended
complaint) further supports denial of intervention by Sundra Evans and Elena S rra. Plaintiffs
represent in that motion that the existing plaintiffs are adequate and appropriate lass l
representatives, and that the claims of the existing named plaintiffs are "represe tat1ve" and i
. . . . l l
"typ1cal" of the claims of the class as a whole. Intervention of proposed interv tors Sundra
Evans and Elena Sierra therefore, is not only untimely, mtervention is also unn l essary and will
.. .. . l
cause additional delay and burden due to the need to conduct additional discov y. No (
exceptional reason is present to warrant the intervention of two additional plain ffs.
Specifically, there is no threat of mootness to the claims of the plaintiffs. `
Plaintiffs motion to intervene Sundra Evans and Elena Sierra should be - enied for all of
the foregoing reasons.
l
2
1


.
Case 3:03-cv-OOUQ-MRK Document 78 Filed O3 RESPECTFULLY SUBM ' TED, I
THE DEFENDANTS I
JOHN ROWLAND, GOV 11- OR .
STATE OF CONNECTIC I- T I
PATRICIA WILSON-CO 11 R 1
COMMISSIONER 1
DEPARTMENT OF SOC V L SERVICES
RICHARD BLUMENTH ·
ATT Y ENE · fl 1
BY: '___ F 1“___ Lil ' E
H 1; .1rbe V V 1 j
Assistant Attorney General l
Federal Bar N0. ct 05731
55 Elm Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120 _
Tel: (860) 808-5210 1
Fax: (860) 808-5385
[email protected] 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A 1
I


1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1

TH`—`_”""T“”—i
Case 3:03-cv-0Oz/18-MRK Document 78 Filed O3/g/2004 Page · of 4 l
. vi 7 1
" CERTIFICATION
. i
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Opposit _ It n of Motions of i
Sandra Evans and Elena Sierra to Intervene was mailed in accordance with ule 5(b) ofthe
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this 16"` day of March , 2004, first class •_ tage prepaid to:
Lucy Potter Joamre G. Gibau
Gregory Lee Bass New Haven Legal Assistance i
Greater Hartford Legal Aid 426 State Street 5
999 Asylum Avenue New Haven, CT 06510-2018 ·
Hartford, CT 06105-2465
Shirley J . Bergert Amy D. Marx ` E
Connecticut Legal Services, Inc. Comiecticut Legal Services, Inc.
872 Main St., PO Box 258 20 Summer Street .
Willimantic, CT 06226 Stamford, CT 06901-2304
Priya Sinha Cloutier Maria N. Morelli-Wolfe T
Connecticut Legal Services, Inc. Greater Hartford Legal Aid -
153 Williams Street 999 Asylum Avenue
New London, CT 06320 Hartford, CT 06105-2465
Caitlin J. Simon i
Connecticut Legal Services _
587 Main Street I
New Britain, CT 06051 Q
/ A in
.___r .__,•.-.A_` ` l
Hu ;‘ .¥ arbe I l
Assistant Attorney General l
I
é
I
L