Preview
UWY-CV-21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv. : OF WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON :
ET AL. : OCTOBER 24, 2022
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO STATE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
Plaintiff objects herewith to State Defendants’ Motion for Judgment (#366.00), in
accordance with the Order of the Court issued on October 17, 2022.
This motion presumes that the Court has issued a ruling in State Defendants’ favor
sustaining its objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Substitute Complaint Nunc
Pro Tunc (#361) filed on August 22, 2022. As of this filing, the Court has not acted on
Plaintiff's motion or State Defendants’ objection thereto. Therefore, this motion is
premature.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff objects to the Motion for Judgment.
First, Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein her “Reply to State Defendants’
Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Substitute Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc”
(‘Reply’) dated October 24, 2022, a copy of which is appended hereto.
Second, Plaintiff emphasizes that the fact of a late-filed Substitute Complaint (in this
case, a 15-day delay) does not mandate entry of a judgment in the case.
To the contrary, Practice Book Section 10-44 explicitly imbues the Court with
discretion to deny such a motion and take into consideration the unique facts and
circumstances presented.
Here, Plaintiff sets forth such determinative facts and circumstances in her attached
Reply.
Plaintiff further notes that State Defendants have not claimed prejudice due to
Plaintiff's innocent mistake, nor can they under the unique facts and circumstances of
this case.
That is, a critical factor weighing in Plaintiff's favor is that this case was for all intents
and purposes “stayed” when the trial court was required to preside over the recent trial
of Alex Jones and his company and concerning parents of victims of the tragic Sandy
Hook mass shooting. The exigencies of that trial required shifting and delaying of
numerous dates and status conferences in this case.Additionally, as Plaintiff has previously stated in “open court’ (remotely), she intends
to file a Sixth Amended Complaint setting forth significant new claims, facts and causes
of action which have occurred and/or come to light in the time since the Fifth Amended
Complaint and Substitute Complaint were filed. These facts and issues could not have.
been presented earlier because they have only come to light since the Fifth Amended
Complaint and Substitute Complaint were filed.
Wherefore, Plaintiff objects to State Defendants’ Motion for Judgment.
THE PLAINTIFF
147 Cross Highway
Redding CT 06896
Tel. 203-313-1510
NancyBurtonCT@aol.comUWY-CV-21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Vv. 3 OF WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON :
ETAL. : OCTOBER 24, 2022:
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO STATE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUBSTITUTE COMPLAINT NUNC PRO TUNC
Plaintiff replies herewith to State Defendants’ Objection (#365) to Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to File Substitute Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc (#364.00), pursuant to Practice
Book Section 10-44.
Plaintiff asserts in her motion that due to inadvertence and oversight, owing to a
multiplicity of deadlines and appeal filing requirements in the related case State of
Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., (X06) UWY-CV-21-6064254-S
(“Dunn v. 65 Goats”), Plaintiff erred in mistaking the deadline for filing a substitute
Pleading after a motion to strike is granted, as here, on July 22, 2022. Plaintiff had
mistakenly believed the period allowed was 30 days. Plaintiff filed her Substitute
Complaint on August 22, 2022, the 31% day (the 30" day occurring on a Sunday), rather
than the fifteenth day as the rule provides.
The State Defendants (“Department”) assert in their objection that the Substitute
Complaint should be rejected because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for
the delay and, further, that the relief sought in the motion is not supported by the
applicable provision of the Practice Book.
The Department's Objections must be rejected.
First, Plaintiff argues, without basis, that Plaintiff callously “ignored” the Practice
Book Section 10-44. Plaintiff did not “ignore” the rule; she was beset with a multiplicity
of critical deadlines at that time and made an innocent, not intentional error.
Defendant failed to acknowledge that among the asserted “multiplicity” of deadlines
at the time was a deadline to file an appeal — as Plaintiff did on August 10, 2022 in the
related case of Dunn v. 65 Goats, and with such filing was also required to file all the
preliminary appellate documents including ordering and processing a myriad of
necessary transcripts by August 19, 2022.
Plaintiff was also severely pressed to begin preparations for the upcoming hearing
Defendant's Motion to Terminate Stay and assemble exhibits and engage in new legal,
1research in preparation for that critical hearing. (The hearing date was later re-
scheduled to take pace at a later time.)
Plaintiff is a pro se party. She has no staff of paralegals or secretaries, unlike
Defendant, and has not actively practiced law for twenty years. Plaintiffs subscriptions.
to legal research databases and other essential legal research materials have long
since expired. In consequence, Plaintiff has had to expend countless hours in travel
time alone to work at law libraries, many of which have irregular hours and aged,
malfunctioning equipment. During the period in question, upon Plaintiffs best
recollections, the entire computer network of word processing and legal databases was
shut down during a lengthy period and across the state in a systemic computer
shutdown throughout the Judicial Department's entire network of law libraries, according
to one state law librarians. These factors created great pressures on Plaintiff — and,
doubtless, countless others across the state - which made it difficult to carry out
necessary legal research and filings during this period of time.
Additionally, Plaintiff has not mentioned in regard to this motion that she has during
this period suddenly been beset with a host of serious, temporarily debilitating medical
episodes that have posed additional challenges. For example, during the period in
question, Plaintiff has experienced two separate incidents of severe allergic reactions to
prescribed medications which were temporarily incapacitating in terms of requiring
avoidance of the legal research and filings of documents in this and the related cases.
At the same time, Plaintiff has recently undergone two surgeries which temporarily
required her to suspend legal research and filings. In the recent past preceding March
10, 2021 Plaintiff had enjoyed excellent health.
At the same time, a close relative was stricken with the COVID-19 coronavirus,
forcing certain restrictions beyond those stated.
Finally, Defendant has not been prejudiced by Plaintiff's innocent error. This case
has been subject to a temporary de facto "quasi-stay” during the period of time that the
trial court has recently presided *1 over the jury trial in Erica Lafferty et al. v. Alex
Emric Jones, X06-UWY-CV-18-6046436-S and related cases.
Moreover, Defendant's motion fails to cite to a rule — nor is there such a rule - that
prohibits the Court from excusing the innocently late-filed substitute complaint.
Indeed, Defendant's statement that the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file her
Substitute Complaint nunc pro tunc is “unsupported by the provisions of the Practice
Book” is misleading. Nowhere in the text of the rule is there a statement declaring that
the Court lacks authority to grant the motion.
Contrariwise, Practice Book Section 10-44, cited by Defendant, provides that “the
judicial authority may, upon motion, enter judgment against said party on said stricken
complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint or count thereof’ (Emphasis added.)Thus Section 10-44 supports a decision allowing for a late filing of a substitute
complaint in the considered discretion of the Court.
Finally, Practice Book Section 1-8 (“Rules To Be Liberally Interpreted”) provides:
The design of these rules being to facilitate business and advance justice, they
will be interpreted liberally in any case where it shall be manifest that a strict
adherence to them will work surprise or injustice
For all these reasons, Plaintiff asks that the Court excuse her filing of the Substitute
Complaint 15 days outside the rule and that such decision have application to all
Defendants in this case.
THE PLAIN
N&ncy Burto!
147 Cross Highway
Redding CT 06896
Tel. 203-313-1510
NancyBurtonCT@aol.comCERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed electronically pursuant
to Practice Book §10-13 on October 24, 2022 to the following and all counsel of
record as follows:
Matthew Levine. Esq.
Jonathan Harding, Esq.
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford CT 06106
Matthew. Levine@ct.gov/Jonathan. Harding@ct.gov
James Tallberg, Esq.
Karsten & Tallberg
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B
Rocky Hill CT 06067
JTallberg@kt-lawfirm.com/kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com
Philip Newbury, Esq.
Howd & Ludorf LLC
65 Wethersfield Ave.
Hartford CT 06114
Michael Riseberg, Esq.
53 State Street
Boston MA 02109
MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com/CParise@rubinrudman.com/
DStanhill@rubinrudman.com
Steven F. Stafstrom, Esq.
Pullman & Comley
850 Main Street
Bridgeport CT 06601
sstafstrom@pullcom.com
Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq.
Melick & Porter, LLP
900 Main Street South
Southport CT 06488
aahrens@melicklaw.com ——_—CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed electronically pursuant
to Practice Book §10-13 on October 24, 2022 to the following and all counsel of
record as follows:
Matthew Levine. Esq.
Jonathan Harding, Esq.
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford CT 06106
Matthew. Levine@ct.gov/Jonathan. Harding@ct.gov
James Tallberg, Esq.
Karsten & Tallberg
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B
Rocky Hill CT 06067
JTallberg@kt-lawfirm.com/kbosse@kt-lawtirm.com
Philip Newbury, Esq.
Howd & Ludorf LLC
65 Wethersfield Ave.
Hartford CT 06114
Michael Riseberg, Esq.
53 State Street
Boston MA 02109
MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com/C Parise@rubinrudman.com/
DStanhill@rubinrudman.com
Steven F. Stafstrom, Esq.
Pullman & Comley
850 Main Street
Bridgeport CT 06601
sstafstrom@pullcom.com
Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq.
Melick & Porter, LLP
900 Main Street South
Southport CT 06488
aahrens@melicklaw.com
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
UWY-CV-21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. : OF WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON : ET AL. : OCTOBER 24, 2022 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO STATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT Plaintiff objects herewith to State Defendants’ Motion for Judgment (#366.00), in accordance with the Order of the Court issued on October 17, 2022. This motion presumes that the Court has issued a ruling in State Defendants’ favor sustaining its objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Substitute Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc (#361) filed on August 22, 2022. As of this filing, the Court has not acted on Plaintiff's motion or State Defendants’ objection thereto. Therefore, this motion is premature. Nevertheless, Plaintiff objects to the Motion for Judgment. First, Plaintiff incorporates by reference herein her “Reply to State Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Substitute Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc” (‘Reply’) dated October 24, 2022, a copy of which is appended hereto. Second, Plaintiff emphasizes that the fact of a late-filed Substitute Complaint (in this case, a 15-day delay) does not mandate entry of a judgment in the case. To the contrary, Practice Book Section 10-44 explicitly imbues the Court with discretion to deny such a motion and take into consideration the unique facts and circumstances presented. Here, Plaintiff sets forth such determinative facts and circumstances in her attached Reply. Plaintiff further notes that State Defendants have not claimed prejudice due to Plaintiff's innocent mistake, nor can they under the unique facts and circumstances of this case. That is, a critical factor weighing in Plaintiff's favor is that this case was for all intents and purposes “stayed” when the trial court was required to preside over the recent trial of Alex Jones and his company and concerning parents of victims of the tragic Sandy Hook mass shooting. The exigencies of that trial required shifting and delaying of numerous dates and status conferences in this case.Additionally, as Plaintiff has previously stated in “open court’ (remotely), she intends to file a Sixth Amended Complaint setting forth significant new claims, facts and causes of action which have occurred and/or come to light in the time since the Fifth Amended Complaint and Substitute Complaint were filed. These facts and issues could not have. been presented earlier because they have only come to light since the Fifth Amended Complaint and Substitute Complaint were filed. Wherefore, Plaintiff objects to State Defendants’ Motion for Judgment. THE PLAINTIFF 147 Cross Highway Redding CT 06896 Tel. 203-313-1510 NancyBurtonCT@aol.comUWY-CV-21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT Vv. 3 OF WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON : ETAL. : OCTOBER 24, 2022: PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO STATE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUBSTITUTE COMPLAINT NUNC PRO TUNC Plaintiff replies herewith to State Defendants’ Objection (#365) to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Substitute Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc (#364.00), pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-44. Plaintiff asserts in her motion that due to inadvertence and oversight, owing to a multiplicity of deadlines and appeal filing requirements in the related case State of Connecticut ex rel. Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., (X06) UWY-CV-21-6064254-S (“Dunn v. 65 Goats”), Plaintiff erred in mistaking the deadline for filing a substitute Pleading after a motion to strike is granted, as here, on July 22, 2022. Plaintiff had mistakenly believed the period allowed was 30 days. Plaintiff filed her Substitute Complaint on August 22, 2022, the 31% day (the 30" day occurring on a Sunday), rather than the fifteenth day as the rule provides. The State Defendants (“Department”) assert in their objection that the Substitute Complaint should be rejected because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay and, further, that the relief sought in the motion is not supported by the applicable provision of the Practice Book. The Department's Objections must be rejected. First, Plaintiff argues, without basis, that Plaintiff callously “ignored” the Practice Book Section 10-44. Plaintiff did not “ignore” the rule; she was beset with a multiplicity of critical deadlines at that time and made an innocent, not intentional error. Defendant failed to acknowledge that among the asserted “multiplicity” of deadlines at the time was a deadline to file an appeal — as Plaintiff did on August 10, 2022 in the related case of Dunn v. 65 Goats, and with such filing was also required to file all the preliminary appellate documents including ordering and processing a myriad of necessary transcripts by August 19, 2022. Plaintiff was also severely pressed to begin preparations for the upcoming hearing Defendant's Motion to Terminate Stay and assemble exhibits and engage in new legal, 1research in preparation for that critical hearing. (The hearing date was later re- scheduled to take pace at a later time.) Plaintiff is a pro se party. She has no staff of paralegals or secretaries, unlike Defendant, and has not actively practiced law for twenty years. Plaintiffs subscriptions. to legal research databases and other essential legal research materials have long since expired. In consequence, Plaintiff has had to expend countless hours in travel time alone to work at law libraries, many of which have irregular hours and aged, malfunctioning equipment. During the period in question, upon Plaintiffs best recollections, the entire computer network of word processing and legal databases was shut down during a lengthy period and across the state in a systemic computer shutdown throughout the Judicial Department's entire network of law libraries, according to one state law librarians. These factors created great pressures on Plaintiff — and, doubtless, countless others across the state - which made it difficult to carry out necessary legal research and filings during this period of time. Additionally, Plaintiff has not mentioned in regard to this motion that she has during this period suddenly been beset with a host of serious, temporarily debilitating medical episodes that have posed additional challenges. For example, during the period in question, Plaintiff has experienced two separate incidents of severe allergic reactions to prescribed medications which were temporarily incapacitating in terms of requiring avoidance of the legal research and filings of documents in this and the related cases. At the same time, Plaintiff has recently undergone two surgeries which temporarily required her to suspend legal research and filings. In the recent past preceding March 10, 2021 Plaintiff had enjoyed excellent health. At the same time, a close relative was stricken with the COVID-19 coronavirus, forcing certain restrictions beyond those stated. Finally, Defendant has not been prejudiced by Plaintiff's innocent error. This case has been subject to a temporary de facto "quasi-stay” during the period of time that the trial court has recently presided *1 over the jury trial in Erica Lafferty et al. v. Alex Emric Jones, X06-UWY-CV-18-6046436-S and related cases. Moreover, Defendant's motion fails to cite to a rule — nor is there such a rule - that prohibits the Court from excusing the innocently late-filed substitute complaint. Indeed, Defendant's statement that the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file her Substitute Complaint nunc pro tunc is “unsupported by the provisions of the Practice Book” is misleading. Nowhere in the text of the rule is there a statement declaring that the Court lacks authority to grant the motion. Contrariwise, Practice Book Section 10-44, cited by Defendant, provides that “the judicial authority may, upon motion, enter judgment against said party on said stricken complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint or count thereof’ (Emphasis added.)Thus Section 10-44 supports a decision allowing for a late filing of a substitute complaint in the considered discretion of the Court. Finally, Practice Book Section 1-8 (“Rules To Be Liberally Interpreted”) provides: The design of these rules being to facilitate business and advance justice, they will be interpreted liberally in any case where it shall be manifest that a strict adherence to them will work surprise or injustice For all these reasons, Plaintiff asks that the Court excuse her filing of the Substitute Complaint 15 days outside the rule and that such decision have application to all Defendants in this case. THE PLAIN N&ncy Burto! 147 Cross Highway Redding CT 06896 Tel. 203-313-1510 NancyBurtonCT@aol.comCERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed electronically pursuant to Practice Book §10-13 on October 24, 2022 to the following and all counsel of record as follows: Matthew Levine. Esq. Jonathan Harding, Esq. 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford CT 06106 Matthew. Levine@ct.gov/Jonathan. Harding@ct.gov James Tallberg, Esq. Karsten & Tallberg 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B Rocky Hill CT 06067 JTallberg@kt-lawfirm.com/kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com Philip Newbury, Esq. Howd & Ludorf LLC 65 Wethersfield Ave. Hartford CT 06114 Michael Riseberg, Esq. 53 State Street Boston MA 02109 MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com/CParise@rubinrudman.com/ DStanhill@rubinrudman.com Steven F. Stafstrom, Esq. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport CT 06601 sstafstrom@pullcom.com Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq. Melick & Porter, LLP 900 Main Street South Southport CT 06488 aahrens@melicklaw.com ——_—CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed electronically pursuant to Practice Book §10-13 on October 24, 2022 to the following and all counsel of record as follows: Matthew Levine. Esq. Jonathan Harding, Esq. 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford CT 06106 Matthew. Levine@ct.gov/Jonathan. Harding@ct.gov James Tallberg, Esq. Karsten & Tallberg 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B Rocky Hill CT 06067 JTallberg@kt-lawfirm.com/kbosse@kt-lawtirm.com Philip Newbury, Esq. Howd & Ludorf LLC 65 Wethersfield Ave. Hartford CT 06114 Michael Riseberg, Esq. 53 State Street Boston MA 02109 MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com/C Parise@rubinrudman.com/ DStanhill@rubinrudman.com Steven F. Stafstrom, Esq. Pullman & Comley 850 Main Street Bridgeport CT 06601 sstafstrom@pullcom.com Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq. Melick & Porter, LLP 900 Main Street South Southport CT 06488 aahrens@melicklaw.com