Preview
X06-UWY-CV-21-5028294 S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
V. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON
ETAL. : MARCH 10, 2023
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE OBJECTION TO CARMODY/GIBBONS MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS TO STRICKEN COUNTS (ENTRY #399.00) NUNC PRO TUNC
Plaintiff moves for leave nunc pro tunc to object herewith to Defendants Carmody
and Gibbons’ Motion for Judgment as to Stricken Counts (Entry #399.00) dated January
12, 2023.
Further, Plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing at which she will provide medical
evidence of her temporary vision disability and blindness which have impaired her ability
to distinguish the number “3” from “10” and thereby miss a filing deadline. (Even in the
absence of such cause, the trial court was entirely without a basis to dismiss this case
and render judgment on Defendants’ behalf given Plaintiffs full compliance with P.B.
10-44 other than as to a short delay in filing the requisite braketed and underlined
versions of the substituted complaint. The Defendants cite no case law nor Practice
Book authority authorizing the court to dismiss an entire case on such a frivolous,
shallow basis and render judgment without substantial cause.)
Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference herein her Objection to Defendant
Mason's Motion for Judgment (Entry #413.00) dated March 3, 2023 (copy attached
hereto).
The Carmody/Gibbons Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff filed her “Substitute
Fifth Amended Complaint” on December 13, 2023 and they do not assert that that
pleading does not comply substantively with Practice Book Section 10-44 by way of
inserting sufficient allegations timely to overcome a motion to strike.
Thus, as a matter of substance and the dictates of simple justice, the motion for
judgment is without substantive merit.
The sole basis for their motion is their assertion that Plaintiff failed to underline and
bracket new and deleted phraseology as set forth in Section 10-44 simultaneously
with the filing of the substitute pleading.Crucially, and rather disingenuously, they failed to inform the Court that Plaintiff, in
her filings bearing Entry Nos. 400, 401 and 402 dated January 13, 2023, filed Section
10-44-compliant pleadings with the requisite underlinings and bracketings.
The Rules of Practice do not authorize dismissal of a case and judgment against a
party for such an innocent, unintentional oversight, the result of an already-corrected
technical oversight, particularly where, as here, the complaint alleges serious issues of
tortious misconduct motivated by malice, death threats, invasions of privacy, flagrant
civil rights violations and outrageous acts of defamation intended to ruin a party’s
standing in the community.
The issue would be different if the Rules of Practice mandated dismissal for an
innocent error of oversight as occurred here — innocent failure to underline and bracket
new and deleted passages from the prior complaint. But there is no Practice Book rule
to such effect mandating dismissal. In the absence of dismissal, there is no basis for an
adverse judgment to enter. The Defendants cite to no rules of court or case law
supporting their motion. Moreover, their motion for judgment is premature as
Defendants failed to file a pleading to dismiss the case nordid the Court grant such non-
existent motion.
The facts are the more compelling why this motion should be granted since Plaintiff
has set forth overwhelming medical cause of a medical disability which after four recent
eye surgeries remains uncorrected and is the root cause of Plaintiff's inadvertent
oversight in this matter.
The trial court (Bellis, J.) has dismissed the fact of Plaintiff's temporary blindness and
continuing serious vision impairment — resulting in blurring, eye strain, chronic
headache, all of which impair her ability to read and write. From her own hand-written
notes, Plaintiff mistook the date of March “3” for March “10” as the date when her
objection was due in this matter — a seven-day difference that was certainly not
intentional.
Defendants cite no precedent whereby a court has dismissed a case because of an
innocent, medically-based mistake which led her to confuse “3” with “10” because of
temporary vision impairment following four recent surgeries.
There would have to be extraordinary cause for such an order to issue terminating a
meritorious case, let alone a final judgment in the absence of a rule or case law
authorizing such an extreme result.THE PLAI —
Nan
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 March 10,
2023 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
ABX06-UWY-CV-21-5028294 S 3 . GO
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
Vv. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF :
WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON
ETAL. : MARCH 3, 2023
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT MASON
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT (ENTRY # 403)
Plaintiff objects herewith to Motion for Judgment, Entry #403, filed on behalf of
Defendant Mason, dated January 20, 2023.
The Defendant asserts that the Court (Bellis, J.) has stricken all counts of the
complaint as regards Defendant Mason and that Plaintiff failed to replead pursuant to
the Rules of Practice.
Defendant's factual assertions are incorrect and disregard the state of the pleadings.
Contrary to Defendant's assertions, Plaintiff has fully complied with all pertinent
Rules of Practice and orders of the Court timely.
Thus, within fifteen (15) days of the Court's issuance of its Memorandum of Decision
granting motion to strike (Entry #386.00), Plaintiff repleaded by filing her Substitute Fifth
Amended Complaint (Entry #392.00) timely on December 13, 2022.
Through a computer glitch which was no fault of her own, that pleading contained
numerous computer-generated errors; as all parties were aware, and as to which no
party objected, Plaintiff filed a corrected version of the Substitute Fifth Amended
Complaint (Entry #398.00) on January 9, 2023. No party objected.
On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff also filed the Notices (Entry Nos. 400, 401.00 and
402.00) pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-44 with underlined and bracketed
versions of the Substitute Fifth Amended Complaint per request and agreement of the
parties. No party objected.
Thus, although the Court had granted motions to strike in whole or in part, Plaintiff
had repleaded timely. Therefore the Motion for Judgment was filed prematurely and in
the absence of proper cause and should be denied forthwith.
Additionally, Plaintiff submits contemporaneously herewith a motion for extension of
time to further address the factual and legal issues before the Court on this matter.The factual basis of the motion for extension of time is that Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer a serious and traumatic medical disability as a consequence of
which her vision has become severely impaired with respect to her ability to see ata
near distance and engage in computer research and writing without suffering painful
episodes of eye strain, headaches and physical misery.
Since December 2021, Plaintiff has undergone multiple surgeries to correct her
vision. The most recent surgery took place on January 23, 2023. The surgeries have
been separated in time by periods of healing whereby Plaintiff has had to resort to using
multiple pairs of eyeglasses at once as her prescription keeps changing as well as a
variety of magnifying glasses of varying strengths to read and perform basic computer
work such as is required for purposes of this pleading. As a consequence, her ability to
conduct legal research involving dense fonts has been severely impaired, causing
frequent episodes of painful eyestrain and inability to focus and concentrate.
The condition was most recently assessed on March 3, 2023 by Plaintiff's longtime
specialized qualified medical practitioner. Plaintiff's longterm prognosis is good but she
is advised that her vision will not be stabilized before March 17, 2023, when she will be
fitted with the latest but final pair of corrective eyeglasses. It is anticipated that by such
date (a) her near vision will be substantially corrected and (b) she will be able to resume
activities such as computer research and writing without suffering debilitating eyestrain,
headaches and pain, all of which are highly distracting and diminish with the quality of
her work.
During the past several weeks, while Plaintiff has been in recovery from her most
recent eye surgery, Plaintiff has endeavored to focus on Preparation of the instant
Motion but because of the aforesaid circumstances she has been unable to do so to heri
professional satisfaction without enduring near-constant episodes of pain, headaches
and eyestrain.
THE PLAINTIFF
N n
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 March 3,
2023 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. Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq.
Pullman Comley, LLC Melick & Porter, LLP
850 Main Street 900 Main Street South
Bridgeport T 06601 Southbury CT 06488
SStafstrom@pullcom.com aahrens@melicklaw.com
~WiaZGe
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
X06-UWY-CV-21-5028294 S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT V. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON ETAL. : MARCH 10, 2023 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE OBJECTION TO CARMODY/GIBBONS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS TO STRICKEN COUNTS (ENTRY #399.00) NUNC PRO TUNC Plaintiff moves for leave nunc pro tunc to object herewith to Defendants Carmody and Gibbons’ Motion for Judgment as to Stricken Counts (Entry #399.00) dated January 12, 2023. Further, Plaintiff requests an evidentiary hearing at which she will provide medical evidence of her temporary vision disability and blindness which have impaired her ability to distinguish the number “3” from “10” and thereby miss a filing deadline. (Even in the absence of such cause, the trial court was entirely without a basis to dismiss this case and render judgment on Defendants’ behalf given Plaintiffs full compliance with P.B. 10-44 other than as to a short delay in filing the requisite braketed and underlined versions of the substituted complaint. The Defendants cite no case law nor Practice Book authority authorizing the court to dismiss an entire case on such a frivolous, shallow basis and render judgment without substantial cause.) Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference herein her Objection to Defendant Mason's Motion for Judgment (Entry #413.00) dated March 3, 2023 (copy attached hereto). The Carmody/Gibbons Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff filed her “Substitute Fifth Amended Complaint” on December 13, 2023 and they do not assert that that pleading does not comply substantively with Practice Book Section 10-44 by way of inserting sufficient allegations timely to overcome a motion to strike. Thus, as a matter of substance and the dictates of simple justice, the motion for judgment is without substantive merit. The sole basis for their motion is their assertion that Plaintiff failed to underline and bracket new and deleted phraseology as set forth in Section 10-44 simultaneously with the filing of the substitute pleading.Crucially, and rather disingenuously, they failed to inform the Court that Plaintiff, in her filings bearing Entry Nos. 400, 401 and 402 dated January 13, 2023, filed Section 10-44-compliant pleadings with the requisite underlinings and bracketings. The Rules of Practice do not authorize dismissal of a case and judgment against a party for such an innocent, unintentional oversight, the result of an already-corrected technical oversight, particularly where, as here, the complaint alleges serious issues of tortious misconduct motivated by malice, death threats, invasions of privacy, flagrant civil rights violations and outrageous acts of defamation intended to ruin a party’s standing in the community. The issue would be different if the Rules of Practice mandated dismissal for an innocent error of oversight as occurred here — innocent failure to underline and bracket new and deleted passages from the prior complaint. But there is no Practice Book rule to such effect mandating dismissal. In the absence of dismissal, there is no basis for an adverse judgment to enter. The Defendants cite to no rules of court or case law supporting their motion. Moreover, their motion for judgment is premature as Defendants failed to file a pleading to dismiss the case nordid the Court grant such non- existent motion. The facts are the more compelling why this motion should be granted since Plaintiff has set forth overwhelming medical cause of a medical disability which after four recent eye surgeries remains uncorrected and is the root cause of Plaintiff's inadvertent oversight in this matter. The trial court (Bellis, J.) has dismissed the fact of Plaintiff's temporary blindness and continuing serious vision impairment — resulting in blurring, eye strain, chronic headache, all of which impair her ability to read and write. From her own hand-written notes, Plaintiff mistook the date of March “3” for March “10” as the date when her objection was due in this matter — a seven-day difference that was certainly not intentional. Defendants cite no precedent whereby a court has dismissed a case because of an innocent, medically-based mistake which led her to confuse “3” with “10” because of temporary vision impairment following four recent surgeries. There would have to be extraordinary cause for such an order to issue terminating a meritorious case, let alone a final judgment in the absence of a rule or case law authorizing such an extreme result.THE PLAI — Nan 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 March 10, 2023 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 ABX06-UWY-CV-21-5028294 S 3 . GO NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT Vv. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF : WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON ETAL. : MARCH 3, 2023 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT MASON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT (ENTRY # 403) Plaintiff objects herewith to Motion for Judgment, Entry #403, filed on behalf of Defendant Mason, dated January 20, 2023. The Defendant asserts that the Court (Bellis, J.) has stricken all counts of the complaint as regards Defendant Mason and that Plaintiff failed to replead pursuant to the Rules of Practice. Defendant's factual assertions are incorrect and disregard the state of the pleadings. Contrary to Defendant's assertions, Plaintiff has fully complied with all pertinent Rules of Practice and orders of the Court timely. Thus, within fifteen (15) days of the Court's issuance of its Memorandum of Decision granting motion to strike (Entry #386.00), Plaintiff repleaded by filing her Substitute Fifth Amended Complaint (Entry #392.00) timely on December 13, 2022. Through a computer glitch which was no fault of her own, that pleading contained numerous computer-generated errors; as all parties were aware, and as to which no party objected, Plaintiff filed a corrected version of the Substitute Fifth Amended Complaint (Entry #398.00) on January 9, 2023. No party objected. On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff also filed the Notices (Entry Nos. 400, 401.00 and 402.00) pursuant to Practice Book Section 10-44 with underlined and bracketed versions of the Substitute Fifth Amended Complaint per request and agreement of the parties. No party objected. Thus, although the Court had granted motions to strike in whole or in part, Plaintiff had repleaded timely. Therefore the Motion for Judgment was filed prematurely and in the absence of proper cause and should be denied forthwith. Additionally, Plaintiff submits contemporaneously herewith a motion for extension of time to further address the factual and legal issues before the Court on this matter.The factual basis of the motion for extension of time is that Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer a serious and traumatic medical disability as a consequence of which her vision has become severely impaired with respect to her ability to see ata near distance and engage in computer research and writing without suffering painful episodes of eye strain, headaches and physical misery. Since December 2021, Plaintiff has undergone multiple surgeries to correct her vision. The most recent surgery took place on January 23, 2023. The surgeries have been separated in time by periods of healing whereby Plaintiff has had to resort to using multiple pairs of eyeglasses at once as her prescription keeps changing as well as a variety of magnifying glasses of varying strengths to read and perform basic computer work such as is required for purposes of this pleading. As a consequence, her ability to conduct legal research involving dense fonts has been severely impaired, causing frequent episodes of painful eyestrain and inability to focus and concentrate. The condition was most recently assessed on March 3, 2023 by Plaintiff's longtime specialized qualified medical practitioner. Plaintiff's longterm prognosis is good but she is advised that her vision will not be stabilized before March 17, 2023, when she will be fitted with the latest but final pair of corrective eyeglasses. It is anticipated that by such date (a) her near vision will be substantially corrected and (b) she will be able to resume activities such as computer research and writing without suffering debilitating eyestrain, headaches and pain, all of which are highly distracting and diminish with the quality of her work. During the past several weeks, while Plaintiff has been in recovery from her most recent eye surgery, Plaintiff has endeavored to focus on Preparation of the instant Motion but because of the aforesaid circumstances she has been unable to do so to heri professional satisfaction without enduring near-constant episodes of pain, headaches and eyestrain. THE PLAINTIFF N n 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 March 3, 2023 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. Alexander W. Ahrens, Esq. Pullman Comley, LLC Melick & Porter, LLP 850 Main Street 900 Main Street South Bridgeport T 06601 Southbury CT 06488 SStafstrom@pullcom.com aahrens@melicklaw.com ~WiaZGe