Preview
DOCKET NO.: AAN-CV-16-6021915-S
ROBERT SATAWHITE, :
fl SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff,
J.D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
v.
AT MILFORD
JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS
AND BARBER,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA R. GOODBAUM, ESQ.
I, Joshua R. Goodbaum, am over the age of eighteen and understand the obligations of an
oath. I do hereby state the following:
Background
1. I ama lawyer admitted to practice in the States of Connecticut and New York and
a partner at the law firm of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., in New Haven,
where I represent employees in employment litigation and negotiation.
2. I graduated from Yale University, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, in 2004.
3. I attended Harvard Law School from 2006 to 2009, graduating magna cum laude
(which in 2009 indicated a grade point average in the top 10% of the class). I served as
Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
4, After law school, I served as a judicial law clerk for Associate Justice Neil
M. Gorsuch of the Supreme Court of the United States, when he was a Judge on the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
5. Following the clerkship, I practiced as an associate attorney at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP in Washington, DC.6. I joined the law firm now known as Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald &
Pirrotti, P.C., in 2011 and became an equity partner in January 2016.
7. My practice involves the representation of individuals in employment law
disputes. I regularly litigate in the state and federal courts in Connecticut.
8. I charge $400 per hour for my services — a rate which clients regularly pay me.
9. I currently serve, by election, as Chair of the Labor & Employment Law Section
of the Connecticut Bar Association, which has approximately 650 members. | also serve on the
Executive Committees of the Labor & Employment Law Section and of the Federal Practice
Section.
10. Tama frequent speaker and writer about issues related to employment law in
Connecticut. By way of example, since 2015, I have presented an annual update of Connecticut
labor and employment law to either the Connecticut Legal Conference or the CBA Labor &
Employment Law Section’s Annual Advanced Employment Law Symposium.
11. My significant study of and experience with employment law and employment
litigation provides me with a special skill or knowledge that is not common to the average lay
person or even the average member of the Connecticut bar. Accordingly, I am qualified to serve
as an expert witness concerning employment litigation in Connecticut.
Opinion
12. [have reviewed the circumstances of the Defendants’ representation of Plaintiff
Satawhite in a 2014 Superior Court lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport.
13. | My understanding of the facts of that representation, which I assume to be true,
are as follows:
a. The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport on Plaintiff
Satawhite’s behalf in or about November 2014. That lawsuit was docketed as AAN-CV14-6077396-S. (The lawsuit appears to have been filed in the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford,
although the Complaint refers to the “J.D. of New Haven.”)
b. The lawsuit alleged breach of contract and constructive discharge. (The
legal theory of the constructive discharge is not entirely clear, but it seems to be common law
wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, based on the Plaintiff's refusal to comply with
an “improper directive.””)
c. The City filed a “motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss” in or
about November 2015. (Dkt. No. 111.) On February 12, 2016, the Defendants — purportedly
on behalf of Plaintiff Satawhite — filed a self-styled “Reply to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.” The Reply stated, in total: “The plaintiff, Robert Satawhite, by and through his
counsel, has elected to waive his right to file a responsive pleading, waives his right to oral
argument on Defendant’s instant motion[,] and thereby leaves the Defendant to its burden of
persuasion.” (Dkt. No. 112.) The same day that the “Reply” was filed, the Court granted the
City’s motion and entered judgment for the City. (Dkt Nos. 111.2 & 113.)
d. At no point did the Defendants inform Plaintiff Satawhite that they were
filing the aforementioned “Reply” or that they were waiving his right to oppose the City’s
motion. Plaintiff Satawhite did not wish to waive his right to oppose the City’s motion, nor did
he give the Defendants his consent to do so.
14. Inmy opinion, based on the above-described facts, the Defendants departed from
the standard of proper professional skill or care that applies to lawyers representing employees in
Connecticut.15. In my opinion, the filing of the “Reply” without authorization from Plaintiff
Satawhite violated several of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules
1.1, 1.3, and 1.4.
16. In my opinion, there is no reasonable explanation for failing or refusing to oppose
a dispositive motion in an employment case without the informed consent of the client or, at a
minimum, extensive efforts to obtain the informed consent of the client.
17. [have not been asked to develop an opinion about the merits or value of Plaintiff
Satawhite’s underlying lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport or the likelihood of the City’s
motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss being granted if an opposition had been filed. I
therefore express no opinion as to those questions.
Josie R. Goodaum
state of_Connech ty t
County of New Haven
Thereby certify that Joshua R. Goodbaum has read the foregoing Affidavit, understands
the contents thereof, and affirms that it is true, accurate, and complete to the best of his
knowledge and belief.
+h
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12 day of March, 2018.
iade UM DeMatteis
Notary Public |
[ LINDA M.DeMATTEIS
My Commission Expires: _/0 3//20 ou
Preview
DOCKET NO.: AAN-CV-16-6021915-S ROBERT SATAWHITE, : fl SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff, J.D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD v. AT MILFORD JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS AND BARBER, Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA R. GOODBAUM, ESQ. I, Joshua R. Goodbaum, am over the age of eighteen and understand the obligations of an oath. I do hereby state the following: Background 1. I ama lawyer admitted to practice in the States of Connecticut and New York and a partner at the law firm of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., in New Haven, where I represent employees in employment litigation and negotiation. 2. I graduated from Yale University, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, in 2004. 3. I attended Harvard Law School from 2006 to 2009, graduating magna cum laude (which in 2009 indicated a grade point average in the top 10% of the class). I served as Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review. 4, After law school, I served as a judicial law clerk for Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch of the Supreme Court of the United States, when he was a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 5. Following the clerkship, I practiced as an associate attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Washington, DC.6. I joined the law firm now known as Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., in 2011 and became an equity partner in January 2016. 7. My practice involves the representation of individuals in employment law disputes. I regularly litigate in the state and federal courts in Connecticut. 8. I charge $400 per hour for my services — a rate which clients regularly pay me. 9. I currently serve, by election, as Chair of the Labor & Employment Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association, which has approximately 650 members. | also serve on the Executive Committees of the Labor & Employment Law Section and of the Federal Practice Section. 10. Tama frequent speaker and writer about issues related to employment law in Connecticut. By way of example, since 2015, I have presented an annual update of Connecticut labor and employment law to either the Connecticut Legal Conference or the CBA Labor & Employment Law Section’s Annual Advanced Employment Law Symposium. 11. My significant study of and experience with employment law and employment litigation provides me with a special skill or knowledge that is not common to the average lay person or even the average member of the Connecticut bar. Accordingly, I am qualified to serve as an expert witness concerning employment litigation in Connecticut. Opinion 12. [have reviewed the circumstances of the Defendants’ representation of Plaintiff Satawhite in a 2014 Superior Court lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport. 13. | My understanding of the facts of that representation, which I assume to be true, are as follows: a. The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport on Plaintiff Satawhite’s behalf in or about November 2014. That lawsuit was docketed as AAN-CV14-6077396-S. (The lawsuit appears to have been filed in the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford, although the Complaint refers to the “J.D. of New Haven.”) b. The lawsuit alleged breach of contract and constructive discharge. (The legal theory of the constructive discharge is not entirely clear, but it seems to be common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, based on the Plaintiff's refusal to comply with an “improper directive.””) c. The City filed a “motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss” in or about November 2015. (Dkt. No. 111.) On February 12, 2016, the Defendants — purportedly on behalf of Plaintiff Satawhite — filed a self-styled “Reply to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” The Reply stated, in total: “The plaintiff, Robert Satawhite, by and through his counsel, has elected to waive his right to file a responsive pleading, waives his right to oral argument on Defendant’s instant motion[,] and thereby leaves the Defendant to its burden of persuasion.” (Dkt. No. 112.) The same day that the “Reply” was filed, the Court granted the City’s motion and entered judgment for the City. (Dkt Nos. 111.2 & 113.) d. At no point did the Defendants inform Plaintiff Satawhite that they were filing the aforementioned “Reply” or that they were waiving his right to oppose the City’s motion. Plaintiff Satawhite did not wish to waive his right to oppose the City’s motion, nor did he give the Defendants his consent to do so. 14. Inmy opinion, based on the above-described facts, the Defendants departed from the standard of proper professional skill or care that applies to lawyers representing employees in Connecticut.15. In my opinion, the filing of the “Reply” without authorization from Plaintiff Satawhite violated several of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. 16. In my opinion, there is no reasonable explanation for failing or refusing to oppose a dispositive motion in an employment case without the informed consent of the client or, at a minimum, extensive efforts to obtain the informed consent of the client. 17. [have not been asked to develop an opinion about the merits or value of Plaintiff Satawhite’s underlying lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport or the likelihood of the City’s motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss being granted if an opposition had been filed. I therefore express no opinion as to those questions. Josie R. Goodaum state of_Connech ty t County of New Haven Thereby certify that Joshua R. Goodbaum has read the foregoing Affidavit, understands the contents thereof, and affirms that it is true, accurate, and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. +h Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12 day of March, 2018. iade UM DeMatteis Notary Public | [ LINDA M.DeMATTEIS My Commission Expires: _/0 3//20 ou