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

Case 3:02-cv-00213-SRU

Document 139

Filed 07/21/2004

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT RICARDO INHAN, Plaintiff, VS. NORTHEAST MARKETING GROUP, Defendant. : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:02CV0213 (SRU)

July 21, 2004

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE, DATED JUNE 14, 2004. The Plaintiff, Ricardo Inhan, hereby objects to the Defendant's Motion to Strike, dated June 14, 2004. Plaintiff respectfully represents that he has already filed a Third Amended Complaint, dated December 10, 2002, which is fully in compliance with the July 21, 2003 Court Order. Defendant's originally Motion to Strike, dated April 8, 2003, requested that the following paragraphs from the Second Amended Complaint, dated March 31, 2003, be struck: paragraphs 86, 87 and 127 and paragraphs 13, 21, 22, 25-41, 45-54, 61-63, 67, 69-74, 77, 78, 82-84. By way of its Motion to Strike, dated June 17, 2003, the Defendant disingenuously attempts to have struck additional paragraphs that it did not originally request be struck. In its motion, Defendant makes several arguments that are simply not true. For instance, Defendant argues that paragraphs 126 of the Second Amended Complaint was to be deleted. The Defendant argues that the allegations [as set forth in paragraphs 86 and 126 of the Second Amended Complaint] "reappear" in paragraph 41 of the Fifth Count of the Third Amended Complaint, claiming that " `relocation' of the allegations that were to be deleted is a theme of the plaintiff's." (See Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike, dated June 14, 2004, p. 3.) This argument is in direct contradiction to the argument that Defendant made in its original Motion to Strike, dated

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:02-cv-00213-SRU

Document 139

Filed 07/21/2004

Page 2 of 6

April 8, 2003. There, in support of its argument that paragraphs 87, 127 and 86 should be stricken, the Defendant stated that "In addition, the excision of these paragraphs from the complaint would not harm the Plaintiff, as he has made allegations outside of these paragraphs to support the claim of defamation. See paragraph 126 which states "The Plaintiff was defamed when Lee Ann Lionetti called the Plaintiff a `thief and a liar' stating `You are stealing from the company, we'll have to talk to the lawyer about this.'" Also, in regards to paragraph 126, the Defendant requests that paragraph 86 be stricken, as it is redundant of paragraph 126." (Emphasis added.) (See Defendant's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Strike, dated April 8, 2003, p. 6.) Nowhere in the Memorandum did the Defendant request for paragraph 126 to be deleted, but, quite to the contrary, argued that because of its inclusion, other paragraphs should be stricken. Additionally, the Defendant states that the Plaintiff has "relocated" paragraph 50 of the Second Amended Complaint, "which was by Court Order to be deleted, [but] was merely moved, separated into two allegations and is now paragraphs 43 and 44 of Count Two of the Third Amended Complaint." (Defendant's Memorandum, June 14, 2004, p. 3.) Again, the Plaintiff has done no such thing. As the chart included below on pages 3 and 4 details, paragraphs 43 and 44 of Count Two of the Third Amended Complaint are identical to paragraphs 95 and 96 of the Second Amended Complaint, and the Defendant did not, in its April 8, 2003, motion to strike, request that these paragraphs be deleted.

2 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:02-cv-00213-SRU

Document 139

Filed 07/21/2004

Page 3 of 6

Second Amended Complaint 1 ­ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ­ 22 23 24 25 ­ 41 42 43 44 45 ­ 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ­ 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ­ 74 75 76 77 ­ 78 79 80 81 82 ­ 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Third Amended Complaint 1 ­ 12 REMOVED 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 REMOVED 20 21 REMOVED 22 23 24 REMOVED 25 26 27 28 29 30 REMOVED 31 32 33 REMOVED 34 REMOVED 35 36 REMOVED 37 38 39 REMOVED 40 REMOVED REMOVED Count One, ¶ 41 Count One, ¶ 42 Count One, ¶ 43 Count One, ¶ 44

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:02-cv-00213-SRU

Document 139

Filed 07/21/2004

Page 4 of 6

Second Amended Complaint 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

Third Amended Complaint Count One, ¶ 45 Count Two, ¶ 41 Count Two, ¶ 42 Count Two, ¶ 43 Count Two, ¶ 44 Count Two, ¶ 45 Count Two, ¶ 46 Count Two, ¶ 47 Count Two, ¶ 48 Count Two, ¶ 49 Count Two, ¶ 50 Count Two, ¶ 51 Count Two, ¶ 52 Count Two, ¶ 53 Count Two, ¶ 54 Count Two, ¶ 55 Count Two, ¶ 56 Count Two, ¶ 57 Count Two, ¶ 58 Count Two, ¶ 59 Count Two, ¶ 60 Count Two, ¶ [61] (mis-numbered "46") Count Three, ¶ 41 Count Three, ¶ 42 Count Three, ¶ 43 Count Three, ¶ 44 Count Three, ¶ 45 Count Three, ¶ 46 Count Three, ¶ 47 Count Four, ¶ 41 Count Four, ¶ 42 Count Four, ¶ 43 Count Four, ¶ 44 Count Four, ¶ 45 Count Five, ¶ 41 REMOVED Count Five, ¶ 42 Count Five, ¶ 43 Count Five, ¶ 44 Count Five, ¶ 45

4 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:02-cv-00213-SRU

Document 139

Filed 07/21/2004

Page 5 of 6

Finally, the Defendant cites as "another example of the plaintiff's lack of compliance" that paragraph 48 of the Second Amended Complaint has supposedly "become paragraph 42 of the Third Amended Complaint." (See Defendant's Memorandum, June 14, 2004, p. 3.) Again, the chart above demonstrates that Paragraph 42 of Count Two of the Third Amended Complaint is identical to Paragraph 94 of the Second Amended Complaint, which was not requested nor ordered deleted. Discovery in this case was to have been completed as of December 7, 2003, with numerous extensions. While discovery was recently opened for a limited purpose, we are now on the eve of trial, and Defendant by his most recent motion, continued to engage in meritless and timeconsuming motion practice, making a "last ditch" attempt to whittle down the complaint so that nothing of substance remains. Accordingly, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny instant Motion to Strike.

The Plaintiff, Ricardo Inhan

By: __________________ Eugene N. Axelrod, Esq. (ct00309) The Employment Law Group LLC 8 Lunar Drive Woodbridge, CT 06525 Tel. (203) 389-6526 Fax (203) 389-2656

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 3:02-cv-00213-SRU

Document 139

Filed 07/21/2004

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed this ___ of July, 2004, postage prepaid, to the following:

Louis M. Federici, Esq. Parrett, Porto, Parese & Colwell, P.C. 2319 Whitney Avenue, Suite 1D Hamden, Connecticut 06518

_____________________________ Eugene N. Axelrod, Esq.

6 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com