Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON, : SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff, : COMPLEX LITIGATION
: DOCKET
v. :
: AT WATERBURY
DAVID MASON ET AL., :
Defendants. : APRIL 12, 2023
STATE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY
The Defendants, the State of Connecticut's Department of Agriculture ("the
Department”), Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“the Commissioner”), and Charles
Dellarocco, Animal Control Officer (collectively “the state defendants”), pursuant to Practice
Book § 11-1, hereby objects to the plaintiff, Nancy Burton’s (the “plaintiff’s”) motion to stay,
dated April 12, 2023, Docket No. 431.00. Despite asserting that she is suffering from a medical
condition that inhibits her ability to prosecute her case, the plaintiff has represented to the
Appellate Court that said medical condition has been resolved and has continued to file motions
and filings in this matter and others. The plaintiff has not demonstrated how the balance of the
equities favors stay in the instant matter. The motion, therefore, should be denied.
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is the latest in a highly-contested, heavily-disputed and procedurally complex matter
between the parties, stemming from an animal welfare action, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-
329a, concerning sixty-five goats originally in the plaintiff’s possession. In response to the
commencement of that action; see State of Connecticut ex rel Jeremiah Dunn, Chief State
Animal Control Officer v. Sixty-Five Goats et al., No. (X06) UWY-CV21-6064254-S; the
1
plaintiff filed a nine-count complaint on April 5, 2021, against thirteen defendants, including the
state defendants. (Docket No. 100.31). 1
On January 24, 2023, the Court issued an order concluding that the plaintiff had not
complied with its January 11, 2023 Order to cure her defective pleadings, and entered judgment
for the state defendants. (Docket No. 404.00). On February 9, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion to
reargue. (Docket No. 406.00) On February 14, 2023, the plaintiff filed a “motion to correct . . .
vacate [the court’s] order of dismissal and reinstate the case as to state defendants.” (Docket No.
407.00). The state defendants objected to both motions on February 16, 2023 (Docket Nos.
411.00 and 412.00). On March 8, 2023, the plaintiff in Court indicated that she could file replies
to these objections on April 10 and April 17, 2023, respectively. The plaintiff successfully filed
said reply on April 10 to the motion to reargue, which the Court subsequently denied. (Docket
No. 406.20).
On April 12, 2023, the plaintiff filed the instant motion for stay, arguing that an alleged
medical condition was preventing her from adequately engaging in legal research and writing.
She further asserted that such a stay was necessary due to the brief due in the appeal of Sixty-
Five Goats. This objection follows.
ARGUMENT
In her filing, the plaintiff asserts that she suffers from a medical condition that interferes
with her ability to engage in legal research and writing, resulting in errors and other issues with
her filing. Generally, as part of our customary solicitude to any party, counsel, or self-
represented party, the undersigned would be highly considerate and understanding of the
1
To simplify this filing, the state defendants incorporate the full procedural history contained
within their objection to the plaintiff’s motion to reargue, found at Docket No. 411.00.
2
limitations imposed by said medical conditions, and indeed have offered that courtesy to the
plaintiff previously on this very vision issue raised by the plaintiff. The state defendants note,
however, that the plaintiff has explicitly asserted to the Appellate Court that such a condition is
no longer inhibitory on her ability to file briefs.
In a motion to extend time for her brief in the appeal of Sixty-Five Goats, the plaintiff
stated that on March 13, 2023, she had a “landmark day” in which “full vision has been restored
to both eyes and [the plaintiff] has been provided [on March 13] with prescription eyeglasses to
give her fully corrected vision.” The plaintiff attached a receipt of such correcting glasses to the
motion. See Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, State of Connecticut ex rel Jeremiah
Dunn, Chief State Animal Control Officer v. Sixty-Five Goats, AC 45710, at p.1 (attached hereto
as Exhibit 1)
Despite claiming that this vision issue is inhibitory, to which the state defendants have no
evidence to refute beyond the plaintiff’s own assertions, the plaintiff has over the last month
managed to file two motions for reargument (Docket No. 421.00 and 422.00), a motion for
extension nunc pro tunc (Docket No. 423.00), a request to revise (Docket No. 417.00), and a
motion to object nunc pro tunc (Docket No. 415.00), as well as reply to the special defenses
(Docket No. 416.00), just in this case alone. Moreover, the plaintiff in open court indicated she
was able to make filings during this matter’s April 12, 2023 status conference, as the plaintiff
asserted to the Court that she would be able to file objections and responses to filings within a
week of the conference’s date.
At the same time the plaintiff has asserted difficulties in litigating the present matter, the
plaintiff attempted to commence an action against the Attorney General, the Commissioner, the
Department of Agriculture, and several Assistant Attorneys General having appeared in this
3
matter representing the state defendants in federal district court. In that action, the plaintiff was
seeking an opportunity to file for reconsideration following dismissal through March 23, 2023.
See Burton v. Tong et al., No. 3:22-cv-01591-OAW (Docket No. 19). It is simply difficult for the
state defendants to credit the plaintiff’s need for an ongoing stay when the plaintiff has never
stopped litigating this matter despite her asserted vision issues.
The plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the requirements for a stay under the balancing
of the equities test articulated first in Griffin Hospital v. Comm’n on Hospitals and Health Care,
196 Conn. 451, 459-60 (1985). Though it is not a rigid formula, see id. at 458, our jurisprudence
has articulated a four-part test for imposition of a discretionary stay. “In determining whether to
impose a stay . . . the court must balance the interests of the litigants, nonparties, the public and
the court itself. . . . The factors a court should consider include: [1] the interests of the plaintiff in
an expeditious resolution and the prejudice to the plaintiff in not proceeding; [2] the interests of
and burdens on the defendants; [3] the convenience to the court in the management of its docket
and in the efficient use of judicial resources; [4] the interests of other persons not parties to the
civil litigation; and [5] the interests of the public in the pending civil and criminal actions.”
United Publishing Services Employees Union, Cops Local 062 v. Hamden, 209 Conn. App. 116,
124-25 (2021), quoting Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521, 529, cert. denied, 293
Conn. 920 (2009).
Here, none of the factors weigh strongly in favor of a stay. Although the plaintiff asserts a
medical inhibition, she has simultaneously asserted that such issue has been resolved and
demonstrated the ability to continue prosecuting her matter. It is in the interest of the plaintiff, as
the party pressing this suit, to continue this matter expeditiously. Moreover, the briefing deadline
on April 28 in Sixty-Five Goats appeal, which was sought by the plaintiff, does not weigh in
4
favor of stay of this related but discrete proceeding. “The general rule is that parallel proceedings
may proceed; not that they generally should be prohibited.” Doe v. Lenarz, No. CV05-4012970,
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2136, at *5 (Tanzer, J.) (Conn. Super. Ct., Jul. 3, 2006), quoting State
v. Senick, No. CV04-4000274, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 189 (Wiese, J.) (Conn. Super. Ct., Jan.
28, 2005).
Second, the state defendants are essentially dismissed from this action; there is a single
reply the plaintiff must file to address the single motion remaining. Delay in filing such a motion,
which the plaintiff asserted was within her ability on March 8, 2023, prejudices the state
defendants’ ability to achieve finality in this matter. The state defendants are deeply concerned
that, in arguendo and despite her assertion to the Appellate Court, if the Court credits the
plaintiff’s assertion that the “condition evades improvement,” this stay will be continually
extended without some firm deadline for resolution.
Third, the Court, which has had this matter on its docket since April of 2021 and has
observed that the plaintiff has previously engaged in delaying filings numerous times (e.g. as
held in Sixty-Five Goats at Docket Nos. 302.20, 357.00), has an interest in economically and
efficiently moving this matter forward. Finally, the public has an interest in this action, which
encapsulates the resources of the state and a municipality, in being expeditiously resolved.
As is well settled, our jurisprudence’s solicitous approach to self-represented litigants
does not authorize noncompliance with the Practice Book’s procedural rules. Burton v. Dept. of
Environmental Protection, 337 Conn. 781, 803-804 (2021). While the state defendants have
sought to be understanding with the plaintiff’s asserted limitations, it is unreasonable to seek an
eleventh-hour delay after asserting such limitations have been resolved.
5
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the state defendants respectfully request
this Court to sustain their objection and deny the plaintiff’s motion to stay.
Respectfully,
THE DEFENDANTS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BRYAN HURLBURT
COMMISSIONER, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
CHARLES DELLAROCCO
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WILLIAM TONG
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT
By: /S/Daniel M. Salton/Juris No. 437042/
Daniel M. Salton
Assistant Attorney General
Juris No. 437042
Office of the Attorney General of Connecticut
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
T: (860) 808-5250
F: (860) 808-5386
daniel.salton@ct.gov
6
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid, and/or sent via
facsimile or electronic transmission on April 12, 2023, to all counsel and/or self-represented
parties of record, and that written consent was received to receive filings by electronic
transmission from all counsel and/or self-represented parties of record, as follows:
The Self-Represented Plaintiff, Nancy Burton:
Nancy Burton
147 Cross Highway
Redding, CT 06896
nancyburtonct@aol.com
For The Defendants, Julia Pemberton, Town of Redding, Mark O’Donnell, Town of Redding
Health Department, and Town of Redding Police Department:
Kimberly Bosse, Esq.
James N. Tallberg, Esq.
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com
jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com
For The Defendants, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons:
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq.
Howd & Ludorf, LLC
65 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
pnewbury@hl-law.com
For The Defendant Town of Redding:
Steven J. Stafstrom, Jr., Esq.
Pullman & Comley, LLC
850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
sstafstrom@pullcom.com
7
For The Defendant David P. Mason:
Christine Parise, Esq.
Michael D. Riseberg, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
David B. Stanhill, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
Rubin and Rudman, LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
mriseberg@rubinrudman.com
cparise@rubinrudman.com
dstanhill@rubinrudman.com
/S/Daniel M. Salton/Juris No. 437042/
Daniel M. Salton
Assistant Attorney General
8
EXHIBIT 1
9
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON, : SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff, : COMPLEX LITIGATION : DOCKET v. : : AT WATERBURY DAVID MASON ET AL., : Defendants. : APRIL 12, 2023 STATE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR STAY The Defendants, the State of Connecticut's Department of Agriculture ("the Department”), Bryan Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“the Commissioner”), and Charles Dellarocco, Animal Control Officer (collectively “the state defendants”), pursuant to Practice Book § 11-1, hereby objects to the plaintiff, Nancy Burton’s (the “plaintiff’s”) motion to stay, dated April 12, 2023, Docket No. 431.00. Despite asserting that she is suffering from a medical condition that inhibits her ability to prosecute her case, the plaintiff has represented to the Appellate Court that said medical condition has been resolved and has continued to file motions and filings in this matter and others. The plaintiff has not demonstrated how the balance of the equities favors stay in the instant matter. The motion, therefore, should be denied. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This is the latest in a highly-contested, heavily-disputed and procedurally complex matter between the parties, stemming from an animal welfare action, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22- 329a, concerning sixty-five goats originally in the plaintiff’s possession. In response to the commencement of that action; see State of Connecticut ex rel Jeremiah Dunn, Chief State Animal Control Officer v. Sixty-Five Goats et al., No. (X06) UWY-CV21-6064254-S; the 1 plaintiff filed a nine-count complaint on April 5, 2021, against thirteen defendants, including the state defendants. (Docket No. 100.31). 1 On January 24, 2023, the Court issued an order concluding that the plaintiff had not complied with its January 11, 2023 Order to cure her defective pleadings, and entered judgment for the state defendants. (Docket No. 404.00). On February 9, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion to reargue. (Docket No. 406.00) On February 14, 2023, the plaintiff filed a “motion to correct . . . vacate [the court’s] order of dismissal and reinstate the case as to state defendants.” (Docket No. 407.00). The state defendants objected to both motions on February 16, 2023 (Docket Nos. 411.00 and 412.00). On March 8, 2023, the plaintiff in Court indicated that she could file replies to these objections on April 10 and April 17, 2023, respectively. The plaintiff successfully filed said reply on April 10 to the motion to reargue, which the Court subsequently denied. (Docket No. 406.20). On April 12, 2023, the plaintiff filed the instant motion for stay, arguing that an alleged medical condition was preventing her from adequately engaging in legal research and writing. She further asserted that such a stay was necessary due to the brief due in the appeal of Sixty- Five Goats. This objection follows. ARGUMENT In her filing, the plaintiff asserts that she suffers from a medical condition that interferes with her ability to engage in legal research and writing, resulting in errors and other issues with her filing. Generally, as part of our customary solicitude to any party, counsel, or self- represented party, the undersigned would be highly considerate and understanding of the 1 To simplify this filing, the state defendants incorporate the full procedural history contained within their objection to the plaintiff’s motion to reargue, found at Docket No. 411.00. 2 limitations imposed by said medical conditions, and indeed have offered that courtesy to the plaintiff previously on this very vision issue raised by the plaintiff. The state defendants note, however, that the plaintiff has explicitly asserted to the Appellate Court that such a condition is no longer inhibitory on her ability to file briefs. In a motion to extend time for her brief in the appeal of Sixty-Five Goats, the plaintiff stated that on March 13, 2023, she had a “landmark day” in which “full vision has been restored to both eyes and [the plaintiff] has been provided [on March 13] with prescription eyeglasses to give her fully corrected vision.” The plaintiff attached a receipt of such correcting glasses to the motion. See Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief, State of Connecticut ex rel Jeremiah Dunn, Chief State Animal Control Officer v. Sixty-Five Goats, AC 45710, at p.1 (attached hereto as Exhibit 1) Despite claiming that this vision issue is inhibitory, to which the state defendants have no evidence to refute beyond the plaintiff’s own assertions, the plaintiff has over the last month managed to file two motions for reargument (Docket No. 421.00 and 422.00), a motion for extension nunc pro tunc (Docket No. 423.00), a request to revise (Docket No. 417.00), and a motion to object nunc pro tunc (Docket No. 415.00), as well as reply to the special defenses (Docket No. 416.00), just in this case alone. Moreover, the plaintiff in open court indicated she was able to make filings during this matter’s April 12, 2023 status conference, as the plaintiff asserted to the Court that she would be able to file objections and responses to filings within a week of the conference’s date. At the same time the plaintiff has asserted difficulties in litigating the present matter, the plaintiff attempted to commence an action against the Attorney General, the Commissioner, the Department of Agriculture, and several Assistant Attorneys General having appeared in this 3 matter representing the state defendants in federal district court. In that action, the plaintiff was seeking an opportunity to file for reconsideration following dismissal through March 23, 2023. See Burton v. Tong et al., No. 3:22-cv-01591-OAW (Docket No. 19). It is simply difficult for the state defendants to credit the plaintiff’s need for an ongoing stay when the plaintiff has never stopped litigating this matter despite her asserted vision issues. The plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the requirements for a stay under the balancing of the equities test articulated first in Griffin Hospital v. Comm’n on Hospitals and Health Care, 196 Conn. 451, 459-60 (1985). Though it is not a rigid formula, see id. at 458, our jurisprudence has articulated a four-part test for imposition of a discretionary stay. “In determining whether to impose a stay . . . the court must balance the interests of the litigants, nonparties, the public and the court itself. . . . The factors a court should consider include: [1] the interests of the plaintiff in an expeditious resolution and the prejudice to the plaintiff in not proceeding; [2] the interests of and burdens on the defendants; [3] the convenience to the court in the management of its docket and in the efficient use of judicial resources; [4] the interests of other persons not parties to the civil litigation; and [5] the interests of the public in the pending civil and criminal actions.” United Publishing Services Employees Union, Cops Local 062 v. Hamden, 209 Conn. App. 116, 124-25 (2021), quoting Tyler v. Shenkman-Tyler, 115 Conn. App. 521, 529, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 920 (2009). Here, none of the factors weigh strongly in favor of a stay. Although the plaintiff asserts a medical inhibition, she has simultaneously asserted that such issue has been resolved and demonstrated the ability to continue prosecuting her matter. It is in the interest of the plaintiff, as the party pressing this suit, to continue this matter expeditiously. Moreover, the briefing deadline on April 28 in Sixty-Five Goats appeal, which was sought by the plaintiff, does not weigh in 4 favor of stay of this related but discrete proceeding. “The general rule is that parallel proceedings may proceed; not that they generally should be prohibited.” Doe v. Lenarz, No. CV05-4012970, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2136, at *5 (Tanzer, J.) (Conn. Super. Ct., Jul. 3, 2006), quoting State v. Senick, No. CV04-4000274, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 189 (Wiese, J.) (Conn. Super. Ct., Jan. 28, 2005). Second, the state defendants are essentially dismissed from this action; there is a single reply the plaintiff must file to address the single motion remaining. Delay in filing such a motion, which the plaintiff asserted was within her ability on March 8, 2023, prejudices the state defendants’ ability to achieve finality in this matter. The state defendants are deeply concerned that, in arguendo and despite her assertion to the Appellate Court, if the Court credits the plaintiff’s assertion that the “condition evades improvement,” this stay will be continually extended without some firm deadline for resolution. Third, the Court, which has had this matter on its docket since April of 2021 and has observed that the plaintiff has previously engaged in delaying filings numerous times (e.g. as held in Sixty-Five Goats at Docket Nos. 302.20, 357.00), has an interest in economically and efficiently moving this matter forward. Finally, the public has an interest in this action, which encapsulates the resources of the state and a municipality, in being expeditiously resolved. As is well settled, our jurisprudence’s solicitous approach to self-represented litigants does not authorize noncompliance with the Practice Book’s procedural rules. Burton v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 337 Conn. 781, 803-804 (2021). While the state defendants have sought to be understanding with the plaintiff’s asserted limitations, it is unreasonable to seek an eleventh-hour delay after asserting such limitations have been resolved. 5 CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, the state defendants respectfully request this Court to sustain their objection and deny the plaintiff’s motion to stay. Respectfully, THE DEFENDANTS STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BRYAN HURLBURT COMMISSIONER, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CHARLES DELLAROCCO ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WILLIAM TONG ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CONNECTICUT By: /S/Daniel M. Salton/Juris No. 437042/ Daniel M. Salton Assistant Attorney General Juris No. 437042 Office of the Attorney General of Connecticut 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 T: (860) 808-5250 F: (860) 808-5386 daniel.salton@ct.gov 6 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid, and/or sent via facsimile or electronic transmission on April 12, 2023, to all counsel and/or self-represented parties of record, and that written consent was received to receive filings by electronic transmission from all counsel and/or self-represented parties of record, as follows: The Self-Represented Plaintiff, Nancy Burton: Nancy Burton 147 Cross Highway Redding, CT 06896 nancyburtonct@aol.com For The Defendants, Julia Pemberton, Town of Redding, Mark O’Donnell, Town of Redding Health Department, and Town of Redding Police Department: Kimberly Bosse, Esq. James N. Tallberg, Esq. Karsten & Tallberg, LLC 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4 Rocky Hill, CT 06067 kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com For The Defendants, Elinore Carmody and Dennis Gibbons: Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq. Howd & Ludorf, LLC 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 pnewbury@hl-law.com For The Defendant Town of Redding: Steven J. Stafstrom, Jr., Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 sstafstrom@pullcom.com 7 For The Defendant David P. Mason: Christine Parise, Esq. Michael D. Riseberg, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) David B. Stanhill, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) Rubin and Rudman, LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 mriseberg@rubinrudman.com cparise@rubinrudman.com dstanhill@rubinrudman.com /S/Daniel M. Salton/Juris No. 437042/ Daniel M. Salton Assistant Attorney General 8 EXHIBIT 1 9