On April 21, 2021 a
Request,Application
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nancy Burton,
and
Bryan Hurlburt,Commissioner,Ct Dept Of Agriculture,
Building Department, Town Of Redding Ct,
Charles Dellarocco, Animal Control Officer,Ct Dept. Of Agriculture,
David Philip Mason,
Dennis Gibbon,
Department Of Agriculture,State Of Connecticut,
Elinore Carmody,
Health Department,Town Of Redding Ct Town Hall,Redding,
Julia Pemberton First Selectman,Town Or Redding,
Mark O'Donnell Chief Of Police,
Police Department,Town Of Redding Ct Town Hall,
Susan Winters,
Town Of Redding,Connecticut C O Town Clerk,
for M00 - Misc - Injunction
in the District Court of New Haven County.
Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff :
: COMPLEX LITIGATION
v. : DOCKET
: AT WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON, Et Al. :
Defendants : NOVEMBER 22, 2022
STATE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO REVISE
SUBSTITUTE COMPLAINT (ENTRY NO. 363.00)
Defendants, State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“Department”), Bryan P.
Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“Commissioner”), and Charles DellaRocco, State
Animal Control Officer (referred to collectively as “State Defendants”), pursuant to Practice
Book §§ 10-35 & 10-36, file the present Request to Revise Plaintiff, Nancy Burton’s (“Plaintiff”)
Substitute Complaint (Entry No. 363.00). The Substitute Complaint directs claims against the
Department, the Commissioner, and Officer DellaRocco.
I. The Department of Agriculture is no longer a party to this action
Pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, all counts as to the Department were
dismissed in October of 2021. (Mem. Of Decision, Entry No. 232.00.) Plaintiff could not
replead the Department into existing claims. See Godbout v. Attanasio, 199 Conn. App. 88, 109
(2020) (“[w]hereas the granting of a motion to dismiss terminates an action save for the right to
appeal the dismissal, the granting of a motion to strike affords a party the right to amend any
deficiency by repleading.”); Schon v. Berg, CV 990589083S, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2535, at
*5 (Super. Sep. 3, 1999) (“in the event that a motion to dismiss is granted the plaintiff has no
right to plead over.”); Berry v. Gormley, CV010383382S, 2001 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3292, at *5
(Super. Nov. 20, 2001) (“[a] significant difference between a motion to strike as compared to a
motion to dismiss is that the plaintiff would have a right to file a revised pleading after the
granting of a motion to strike, which is not available after the granting of a motion to dismiss).
The Department should not be subject to this Substitute Complaint. It would be procedurally
improper for Plaintiff to be permitted to replead a party into the action following the granting of
a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. It would also be futile practically as the
dismissal would have preclusive effect upon any further claims against the Department and
would still be subject to dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds. While Plaintiff had the
option to replead her complaint to address deficiencies raised by the granting of a motion to
strike, Plaintiff had no right to amend the complaint in response to issues resolved by the
granting of a motion to dismiss.1 There is no basis for Plaintiff to attempt to replead against the
Department, a year after dismissal of all claims against it. The Court has already determined that
it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Department for the claims raised by Plaintiff. This
cause of action, as it relates to the Department can go no further. This is yet another example of
a deliberate abuse of the judicial process designed to delay a resolution to this matter and harass
the Department and its staff. The Department must be removed from the Substitute Complaint at
Counts Four and Five.
For all the foregoing reasons, State Defendants request that Plaintiff revise her Substitute
Complaint in accordance with and in response to the above deficiencies.
1
The Substitute Complaint also merely repleads counts against the Commissioner and Officer
DellaRocco without attempting to remedy the specific deficiencies in the original pleadings.
Thus, they are not materially different from the stricken counts in the prior operative complaint.
See Sempey v.Stamford Hospital, 194 Conn. App. 505, 512 (2019).
DEFENDANTS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BRYAN P. HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER OF
AGRICULTURE
CHARLES DELLAROCCO, STATE ANIMAL
CONTROL OFFICER
WILLIAM TONG
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: ___434270_____________________________
Jonathan E. Harding
Assistant Attorney General
Juris No. 434270
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Request to Revise was delivered electronically
to the following counsel and self-represented parties November 22, 2022:
Nancy Burton
154 Highland Ave.
Rowayton, CT 06853
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq.
Howd & Ludorf, LLC
65 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
pnewbury@hl-law.com
Steve Stafstrom, Esq.
Pullman & Comley, LLC
850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
sstafstrom@pullcom.com
James N. Tallberg, Esq.
Kimberly A. Bosse, Esq.
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC
500 Enterprise Dr., Suite 4B
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com
kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com
Michael D. Riseberg
Christine N. Parise
Rubin & Rudman, LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com
CParise@rubinrudman.com
____434270_________________________
Jonathan E. Harding
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff : : COMPLEX LITIGATION v. : DOCKET : AT WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON, Et Al. : Defendants : NOVEMBER 22, 2022 STATE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO REVISE SUBSTITUTE COMPLAINT (ENTRY NO. 363.00) Defendants, State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“Department”), Bryan P. Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“Commissioner”), and Charles DellaRocco, State Animal Control Officer (referred to collectively as “State Defendants”), pursuant to Practice Book §§ 10-35 & 10-36, file the present Request to Revise Plaintiff, Nancy Burton’s (“Plaintiff”) Substitute Complaint (Entry No. 363.00). The Substitute Complaint directs claims against the Department, the Commissioner, and Officer DellaRocco. I. The Department of Agriculture is no longer a party to this action Pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, all counts as to the Department were dismissed in October of 2021. (Mem. Of Decision, Entry No. 232.00.) Plaintiff could not replead the Department into existing claims. See Godbout v. Attanasio, 199 Conn. App. 88, 109 (2020) (“[w]hereas the granting of a motion to dismiss terminates an action save for the right to appeal the dismissal, the granting of a motion to strike affords a party the right to amend any deficiency by repleading.”); Schon v. Berg, CV 990589083S, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2535, at *5 (Super. Sep. 3, 1999) (“in the event that a motion to dismiss is granted the plaintiff has no right to plead over.”); Berry v. Gormley, CV010383382S, 2001 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3292, at *5 (Super. Nov. 20, 2001) (“[a] significant difference between a motion to strike as compared to a motion to dismiss is that the plaintiff would have a right to file a revised pleading after the granting of a motion to strike, which is not available after the granting of a motion to dismiss). The Department should not be subject to this Substitute Complaint. It would be procedurally improper for Plaintiff to be permitted to replead a party into the action following the granting of a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. It would also be futile practically as the dismissal would have preclusive effect upon any further claims against the Department and would still be subject to dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds. While Plaintiff had the option to replead her complaint to address deficiencies raised by the granting of a motion to strike, Plaintiff had no right to amend the complaint in response to issues resolved by the granting of a motion to dismiss.1 There is no basis for Plaintiff to attempt to replead against the Department, a year after dismissal of all claims against it. The Court has already determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Department for the claims raised by Plaintiff. This cause of action, as it relates to the Department can go no further. This is yet another example of a deliberate abuse of the judicial process designed to delay a resolution to this matter and harass the Department and its staff. The Department must be removed from the Substitute Complaint at Counts Four and Five. For all the foregoing reasons, State Defendants request that Plaintiff revise her Substitute Complaint in accordance with and in response to the above deficiencies. 1 The Substitute Complaint also merely repleads counts against the Commissioner and Officer DellaRocco without attempting to remedy the specific deficiencies in the original pleadings. Thus, they are not materially different from the stricken counts in the prior operative complaint. See Sempey v.Stamford Hospital, 194 Conn. App. 505, 512 (2019). DEFENDANTS STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BRYAN P. HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE CHARLES DELLAROCCO, STATE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER WILLIAM TONG ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ___434270_____________________________ Jonathan E. Harding Assistant Attorney General Juris No. 434270 165 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT 06106 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Request to Revise was delivered electronically to the following counsel and self-represented parties November 22, 2022: Nancy Burton 154 Highland Ave. Rowayton, CT 06853 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq. Howd & Ludorf, LLC 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 pnewbury@hl-law.com Steve Stafstrom, Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 sstafstrom@pullcom.com James N. Tallberg, Esq. Kimberly A. Bosse, Esq. Karsten & Tallberg, LLC 500 Enterprise Dr., Suite 4B Rocky Hill, CT 06067 jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com Michael D. Riseberg Christine N. Parise Rubin & Rudman, LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 MRiseberg@rubinrudman.com CParise@rubinrudman.com ____434270_________________________ Jonathan E. Harding Commissioner of the Superior Court