Order: BURTON,NANCY v. MASON,DAVID PHILIP

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                (X06) UWY-CV-21-5028294-S

NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
: JUDICIAL DISTRICT
v. : OF WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON :
ETAL. : FEBRUARY 13, 2023

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CORRECT ENTRY #404.00, VACATE ITS ORDER OF

DISMISSAL AND REINSTATE THE CASE AS TO STATE DEFENDANTS

The Plaintiff moves that the Court delete its order of dismissal of the complaint
issued on January 24, 2023 (Entry #404.00) as to defendants State of Connecticut
Department of Agriculture, Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of
Agriculture and Charles DellaRocco, Animal Control Officer) and reinstate the complaint
as to said defendants!
The Order was issued in error and should be vacated for the following reasons;
1. The Order was issued assertedly on grounds that Plaintiff failed to comply with
Order #366.20 which directed Plaintiff to file a pleading (“Substitute Complaint’)
in compliance with Practice Book Section 10-44 on or before January 23, 2023]

2. Specifically, Practice Book Section 10-44 requires that a party filing a substitute
complaint pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-44 indicate by underlining and
bracketing new or deleted matter distinguishing the substitute pleading from the
previously filed pleading.

3. On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Substitute Fifth Amended Complaint

(#398.00).
4. On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed “Notice Re: Practice Book Section 1 0-44
Compliance” (Entry #400.00).. On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed the predecessor pleading with bracketing and
(Entry #401.00) and predecessor pleading with underlining (Entry # 402,00) to
identify inserted and deleted material pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-44.

. Thereby, Plaintiff's filings as above-identified were fully compliant with the
requirements of Practice Book Section 10-44.

. Accordingly, the dismissal of this case as to the named defendants should be
vacated and the case reinstated to each of them.

. In the event the Court concluded that Plaintiff's filings were not fully compliant
with Practice Book Section 10-44 and the Orders of this Court, Plaintiff requests
that the Court identify with specificity what correction is required and grant leave
to Plaintiff to file corrected documents, insofar as Plaintiff endeavored in good
faith to comply with Practice Book requirements; no parties were prejudiced; no
parties moved to dismiss the case as to him/her/them on grounds of non-+
compliance with Section 10-44 or the Orders of this Court; a sua sponte order
such as was issued here is not favored where it is tantamount to a denial of

notice and due process.

THE PLAINTIFF

—_—_—

fon
147 Cross Highway
Redding CT 06896

Tel. 203-313-1510
NancyBurtonCT@aol.comCERTIFICATION

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered electronically on this date to
all counsel of record as below:

Michael D. Riseberg, Esq.

Christine N. Parise, Esq.

Daniel B. Stanhill, Esq. Rubin and Rudman LLP
53 State Street, 15!" Floor

Boston MA 02109

Tel. 617-330-7000

mriseberg@rubinrudman.com
cparise@ribinrudman.com
dstanhill@rubinrudman.com

Matthew Levine, Esq:
Jonathan Harding, Esq.
231 Capitol Ave.
Hartford CT 06106

Matthew. Levine@ct.gov
Jonathan.Harding@ct.gov

James N. Tallberg, Esq.
Kimberly A. Bosse, Esq.
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC

500 Enterprise Drive Suite 4B
Rocky Hill CT 006067

Tel. 860-233-5600

jtallberq@kt-lawfirm.com
kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com

Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq.
Howd & Ludorf, LLC

65 Wethersfield Ave.
Hartford CT 06114-1121
Tel. 860-249-1361

pnewbury@hl-law.com

Steven Stafstrom, Esq.
Pullman Comley, LLC
850 Main Street
Bridgeport T 06601
SStafstrom@pullcom.com

Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq.
Melick & Porter, LLP

900 Main Street South
Southbury CT 06488
aahrens@melicklaw.com

GaGa

3