Preview
DOCKET NO.: (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S : SUPERIOR COURT
NANCY BURTON : COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET
vs. : AT WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON, ET AL. : OCTOBER 11, 2023
OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO REVISE [DE No. 467]
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Town of Redding (the “Town”), First Selectman Julia Pemberton, and Redding Police Chief
Mark O’Donnell (collectively, the “Town Defendants”) hereby object to plaintiff’s Request to Revise
their Answer and Affirmative Defenses, dated September 13, 2023 [Docket Entry (“DE”) No. 467]
(“Pl’s Req.”). This is plaintiff’s second motion requesting that the Town Defendants revise their
Answer, and comes on the cusp of the dispositive motion deadline, in an effort to continue to cluster the
Court docket and delay these proceedings further. For these reasons, and those set forth below,
plaintiff’s Request should be denied.
II. LAW AND ARGUMENT
A. Applicable Legal Standards
Plaintiff makes her Requests pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35. This section provides that:
Whenever any party desires to obtain (1) a more complete or particular
statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . . or (4) any
other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party
desiring any such amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a
timely request to revise that pleading.
(Emphasis added).
1
Further, Practice Book § 10-36 sets forth requirements to which a movant must adhere in filing a
Request to Revise. In particular, it requires that the motion “set forth, for each requested revision, the
portion of the pleading sought to be revised, the requested revision, and the reasons therefor.” Practice
Book § 10-36.
With respect to the Town Defendants’ pleading requirements, practice Book § 10-46 provides, in
pertinent part, that “[t]he defendant in the answer shall specially deny such allegations of the complaint as
the defendant intends to controvert, admitting the truth of the allegations, unless the defendant intends in
good faith to controvert all the allegations, in which case he or she may deny them generally.” Practice
Book § 10-47, titled “Evasive Denials,” clarifies that “[d]enials must fairly meet the substance of the
allegations denied,” providing the example that:
[w]hen the payment of a certain sum is alleged, the defendant cannot simply
deny the payment generally, but must set forth how much was paid to the
defendant; and where any matter of fact is alleged with divers
circumstances, some of which are untruly stated, it shall not be sufficient to
deny it as alleged, but so much as is true and material should be stated or
admitted, and the rest only denied.
Practice Book § 10-47.
In her motion, plaintiff relies on § 10-47 to support her requests that the Town Defendants revise
their responses to forty (40) paragraphs contained in plaintiff’s Substituted Fifth Amended Complaint
nearly five months after their Answer was filed on April 10, 2023 [DE No. 429]. For thirty-four (34) of
the responses requested to be revised, plaintiff’s only reasoning provided is that such denials are
“evasive.” Pl’s Req., at 1-2; see Practice Book § 10-47. For the remaining six (6) paragraphs (Paragraphs
2
76, 77, 78, 81e, 81f, and 89), plaintiff provides only the following insufficient elaboration on why she
believes such responses to be “evasive”:
B. Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76 of the Operative Substituted Fifth Amended Complaint (“Compl.” or “Operative
Complaint”) [DE No. 398] provides: “The search and seizure affidavit presents no lawful or factual cause
for the requested invasion of plaintiff’s private property and seizure of plaintiff’s entire herd of goats.”
Compl., ¶ 76.
In response, the Town Defendants answered: “Paragraph 76 is denied.” Answer and Affirmative
Defendants (“Defs’ Ans.”), 4/10/23 [DE No. 429], ¶ 77.
Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 76, the Redding Defendants’ denial is
evasive as the facts are clear on the face of the document that it presents no lawful or factual cause for
such invasion and seizure.” Pl’s Req., at 1.
The Town Defendants’ Answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations
under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise is based impermissibly on her
subjective interpretation of the viability of her claims, which is premised on a finding of fact reserved for
the jury and/or on a legal conclusion. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-46, the Town Defendants intend in
good faith to controvert all the allegations in Paragraph 76 and, as such, have properly denied them
generally. Accordingly, Paragraph 76 has been adequately answered and requires no revisions.
3
C. Paragraph 77
Paragraph 77 of the Operative Complaint provides: “Nevertheless, Judge D’Andrea issued the
requested warrant on March 9, 2021, purporting to authorize the immediate seizure of 65 goats from
plaintiff’s property and invade her home.” Compl., ¶ 77.
In response, the Town Defendants answered: “So much of Paragraph 77 as alleges ‘and invade
her home,’ is denied. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 77 are admitted.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 77.
Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 77, Redding Defendants’ denial that the
warrant purported to authorize invasion of Plaintiff’s home is an evasive denial insofar as an invasion of
her home occurred under the assumed authorization as stated in the warrant.” Pl’s Req., at 1.
The Town Defendants’ answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations
under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise is based impermissibly on her
subjective interpretation of the viability of her claims, which is premised on a finding of fact reserved for
the jury. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-46, the Town Defendants have denied only the particular
language of Paragraph 77 to which they in good faith object; the remainder of Paragraph 77 was admitted.
Accordingly, Paragraph 77 has been adequately answered and requires no revisions.
D. Paragraph 78
Paragraph 78 of the Operative Complaint provides: “Plaintiff had previously vacated her home of
35 years and was no longer living in Redding due to her fears and anxiety, inter alia, of the defendants
4
and the tactics they were unscrupulously employing to harass her and interfere with the Mothers Milk
Project.” Compl., ¶ 78,
In response, the Town Defendants answered: “So much of Paragraph 78 as alleges, ‘and the
tactics they were unscrupulously employing to harass her and interfere with the Mothers Milk Project,’ is
denied. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 78, the Redding Defendants have insufficient
knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief and, therefore, leave plaintiff to her
proof.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 78.
Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 78, the Defendants’ denial is evasive
insofar as the home invasion was on its face unconstitutional and unscrupulous.” Pl’s Req., at 1.
The Town Defendants’ answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations
under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise is based impermissibly on her
subjective interpretation of the viability of her claims, which is premised on a finding of fact reserved for
the jury. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-46, the Town Defendants have denied only the particular
language of Paragraph 78 to which they in good faith object, and have left plaintiff to her proof as to her
alleged vacation of her home and her purported reasons therefor, about which the Town Defendants lack
personal knowledge. Accordingly, Paragraph 78 has been adequately answered and requires no revisions.
E. Paragraph 81(e)
Paragraph 81(e) of the Operative Complaint provides:
That the Town of Redding, per its town counsel, Steven Stafstrom, Esq.,
had proposed to plaintiff on March 9, 2021 – the very day defendant
DellaRocco applied to Judge D’Andrea for a warrant to seize plaintiff’s
5
goats and thereby subject the State of Connecticut and the Town of Redding
to significant costs and commitment of significant resources and time, apart
from significant legal liabilities – that the Town of Redding would assist
financially and in other ways to transfer plaintiff’s goats to SBF Animal
Rescue, Inc. on condition that plaintiff drop two lawsuits pending against
the Town of Redding concerning the goats, a step plaintiff was fully
prepared to take, and which proposal Mr. Stafstrom assured he would
pursue forthwith with the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Redding with
his strong recommendation that the Board enter into such a commitment. .
..
Compl., ¶ 81(e).
In response, the Town Defendants answered: “As to the allegations of Paragraph 81(e), the
Redding Defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief
and, therefore, leave plaintiff to her proof.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 81(e).
Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 81e, the Defendants’ response is evasive
insofar as it alleges the conduct of their attorney in this matter, Steven Stafstrom, which is imputed to
them.” Pl’s Req., at 1.
The Town Defendants’ answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations
under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Although plaintiff has not provided particular elaboration as to
which portion of the response to Paragraph 81(e) she wants revised, it seems, from her motion, that
plaintiff would have the Town Defendants ‘admit’ the contents of Paragraph 81(e) based solely on
Attorney Stafstrom’s title as Town Attorney. Plaintiff’s narrative recitation of the particularities of her
settlement discussions with Attorney Stafstrom and her apparent impressions formed therefrom do not
contain information “imputed to” the First Selectman, Chief of Police, or Town proper that would require
6
such details to be admitted. Because the Town Defendants lack sufficient personal knowledge on which
to either admit or deny Paragraph 81(e), therefore, Paragraph 81(e) has been adequately answered and
requires no revisions.
F. Paragraph 81(f)
Paragraph 81(f) of the Operative Complaint provides: “That plaintiff was subject to an order
issued by Hon. Barbara Bellis, assigned to the Complex Litigation Docket, to appear for a remote hearing
on March 10, 2021 at 9 AM in the two cases she had brought involving her goats. . . .” Compl., ¶ 81(f).
In response, the Town Defendants answered: “As to the allegations of Paragraph 81(f), the
Redding Defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief
and, therefore, leave plaintiff to her proof.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 81(f).
Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 81f, the Defendants’ response is evasive
insofar as it alleges conduct of their attorney, Steven Stafstrom, in this matter, which is imputed to them.”
Pl’s Req., at 1.
Although plaintiff has not provided particular elaboration as to which portion of the response to
Paragraph 81(f) she wants revised, and despite her representation that Paragraph 81(f) “alleges conduct of
their attorney, Steven Stafstrom . . . which is imputed to them,” Pl’s Req., at 1, a plain reading of
Paragraph 81(f) demonstrates that no conduct of Attorney Stafstrom is alleged. Rather, Paragraph 81(f)
describes plaintiff’s participation in a remote hearing before this Court, about which allegations the Town
Defendants lack sufficient personal knowledge on which to either admit or deny them as alleged.
Accordingly, Paragraph 81(f) has been adequately answered and requires no revisions.
7
G. Paragraph 89
Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 89, Redding Defendants’ assertion that the
Complaint does not contain a Paragraph 89 is simply incorrect; Paragraph 89 appears without indentation
at the end of Paragraph 88.” Pl’s Req., at 1.
Paragraph 89 of the Operative Complaint, which is not set forth on a separate line and, in fact, is
not even separated by a space from the conclusion of Paragraph 88 to which it is appended, provides: “By
such conduct as set forth hereinabove, the defendants have committed deliberate and malicious cruelty
and abuse of plaintiff’s goats.” Pl’s Compl., ¶¶ 88-89.
In response, the Town Defendants answered: “The Substituted Fifth Amended Complaint does
not contain a Paragraph 89 and, as such, the Redding Defendants provide no response as to Paragraph
89.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 89.
The Town Defendants, in responding to Paragraph 88, answered: “Paragraph 88 is denied.” Id., ¶
88. This response necessarily encompasses and answers the allegations of plaintiff’s purported
“Paragraph 89,” which are included in Paragraph 88 without break or separation in contravention of
Practice Book § 10-1, which requires that a complaint’s “plain and concise statement of the material facts
on which the pleader relies . . . be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively. . . .” Practice Book §
10-1. Thus, “Paragraph 89” is actually part of Paragraph 88.
The Town Defendants’ answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations
under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise is based impermissibly on her
subjective interpretation of the viability of her claims, which is premised on a finding of fact reserved for
8
the jury and/or on a legal conclusion. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-46, the Town Defendants intend in
good faith to controvert all the allegations in Paragraph 88 and, therefore, “Paragraph 89.” As such, the
Town Defendants have properly denied these allegations generally. Practice Book § 10-46. Paragraph 89
has been adequately answered and requires no revisions.
H. The Remaining Paragraphs Requested to be Revised
As to the remaining paragraphs requested to be revised (Paragraphs 88, 93 (a)-(g), Count Three
Paragraphs 93-96, Count Four Paragraphs 92 and 93, Count Five Paragraph 92, Count Six Paragraphs 92-
98, Count Seven Paragraphs 92-97, Count Eight Paragraphs 92 and 93, Count Nine Paragraph 94, and
Count Eleven Paragraphs 93-95), the denials of which plaintiff classifies only as “evasive,” are
nonetheless entirely proper. As noted, the Practice Book requires only that, in denying allegations of a
Complaint, a defendant generally deny particular paragraphs if the defendant intends in good faith to
controvert all allegations contained therein. Practice Book § 10-46. As to each of these additional
paragraphs, the Town Defendants intend in good faith to generally deny each such allegation contained
therein; have complied with their obligations under the Practice Book; and need not revise their denials.
I. Plaintiff’s Non-Compliance with Practice Book Rules
Finally, plaintiff’s motion has not complied with the Practice Book on its face. Pursuant to
Practice Book § 10-36, in making this motion plaintiff must “set forth, for each requested revision, the
portion of the pleading sought to be revised, the requested revision, and the reasons therefor.” Practice
Book § 10-36. Plaintiff has identified numbered paragraphs for revision and has labeled the Town
Defendants’ responses as “evasive,” in most cases without any additional information or specificity.
9
Plaintiff has not, however, stated with particularity what revisions she is requesting or why and, thus, has
plainly failed to comply with Practice Book § 10-36.
Plaintiff has also waited an inexcusable five months to make these revision requests, but provides
no explanation as to the cause of such delay. As the Practice Book requires, Requests to Revise brought
pursuant to § 10-35 must be timely brought within thirty (30) days of the filing of the pleading sought to
be revised. See Practice Book § 10-7 (“The order of pleading shall be as follows: . . . (5) The defendant’s
answer (including any special defenses) to the complaint. (6) The plaintiff’s request to revise the
defendant’s answer. . . .”); id., §10-8 (“[A]ny subsequent pleadings, motions and requests shall advance at
least one step within each successive period of thirty days from the preceding pleading . . . .”).
Accordingly, for these additional reasons, plaintiff’s Request to Revise should be denied.
VI. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Town of Redding, Julia Pemberton, and Mark O’Donnell,
respectfully request that the Court deny plaintiff’s Request to Revise their Answer.
DEFENDANTS, TOWN OF REDDING, JULIA
PEMBERTON AND MARK O’DONNELL
BY/ss/James N. Tallberg
James N. Tallberg
Kimberly A. Bosse
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC
500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
T: (860)233-5600
F: (860)233-5800
jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com
kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com
10
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was provided by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, or
electronic mail pursuant to Practice Book § 10-13 on October 11, 2023, to the following pro se parties
and counsel of record:
Nancy Burton, Pro Se David B. Stanhill
154 Highland Avenue Michael D. Riseberg
Rowayton, CT 06853 Christine N. Parisi
(203) 313-1510 53 State Street
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Boston, MA 02109
(667) 330-7102
dstanill@rubinrudman.com
mriseberg@rubinrudman.com
cparise@rubinrudman.com
Daniel Salton, Esq. Steve Stafstrom, Esq.
Matthew Levine, Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC
Carole Briggs, Esq. 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
AG-Environmental Bridgeport, CT 06601
165 Capitol Avenue, 5th Floor sstafstrom@pullcom.com
Hartford, CT 06106
(860) 808-5172
Daniel.Salton@ct.gov
Matthew.Levine@ct.gov
Carole.Briggs@ct.gov
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq.
Howd & Ludorf, LLC
65 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
(860) 249-1361
pnewbury@hl-law.com
BY /ss/Kimberly A. Bosse
Kimberly A. Bosse
11
Preview
DOCKET NO.: (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S : SUPERIOR COURT NANCY BURTON : COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET vs. : AT WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON, ET AL. : OCTOBER 11, 2023 OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO REVISE [DE No. 467] I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Town of Redding (the “Town”), First Selectman Julia Pemberton, and Redding Police Chief Mark O’Donnell (collectively, the “Town Defendants”) hereby object to plaintiff’s Request to Revise their Answer and Affirmative Defenses, dated September 13, 2023 [Docket Entry (“DE”) No. 467] (“Pl’s Req.”). This is plaintiff’s second motion requesting that the Town Defendants revise their Answer, and comes on the cusp of the dispositive motion deadline, in an effort to continue to cluster the Court docket and delay these proceedings further. For these reasons, and those set forth below, plaintiff’s Request should be denied. II. LAW AND ARGUMENT A. Applicable Legal Standards Plaintiff makes her Requests pursuant to Practice Book § 10-35. This section provides that: Whenever any party desires to obtain (1) a more complete or particular statement of the allegations of an adverse party’s pleading . . . or (4) any other appropriate correction in an adverse party’s pleading, the party desiring any such amendment in an adverse party’s pleading may file a timely request to revise that pleading. (Emphasis added). 1 Further, Practice Book § 10-36 sets forth requirements to which a movant must adhere in filing a Request to Revise. In particular, it requires that the motion “set forth, for each requested revision, the portion of the pleading sought to be revised, the requested revision, and the reasons therefor.” Practice Book § 10-36. With respect to the Town Defendants’ pleading requirements, practice Book § 10-46 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he defendant in the answer shall specially deny such allegations of the complaint as the defendant intends to controvert, admitting the truth of the allegations, unless the defendant intends in good faith to controvert all the allegations, in which case he or she may deny them generally.” Practice Book § 10-47, titled “Evasive Denials,” clarifies that “[d]enials must fairly meet the substance of the allegations denied,” providing the example that: [w]hen the payment of a certain sum is alleged, the defendant cannot simply deny the payment generally, but must set forth how much was paid to the defendant; and where any matter of fact is alleged with divers circumstances, some of which are untruly stated, it shall not be sufficient to deny it as alleged, but so much as is true and material should be stated or admitted, and the rest only denied. Practice Book § 10-47. In her motion, plaintiff relies on § 10-47 to support her requests that the Town Defendants revise their responses to forty (40) paragraphs contained in plaintiff’s Substituted Fifth Amended Complaint nearly five months after their Answer was filed on April 10, 2023 [DE No. 429]. For thirty-four (34) of the responses requested to be revised, plaintiff’s only reasoning provided is that such denials are “evasive.” Pl’s Req., at 1-2; see Practice Book § 10-47. For the remaining six (6) paragraphs (Paragraphs 2 76, 77, 78, 81e, 81f, and 89), plaintiff provides only the following insufficient elaboration on why she believes such responses to be “evasive”: B. Paragraph 76 Paragraph 76 of the Operative Substituted Fifth Amended Complaint (“Compl.” or “Operative Complaint”) [DE No. 398] provides: “The search and seizure affidavit presents no lawful or factual cause for the requested invasion of plaintiff’s private property and seizure of plaintiff’s entire herd of goats.” Compl., ¶ 76. In response, the Town Defendants answered: “Paragraph 76 is denied.” Answer and Affirmative Defendants (“Defs’ Ans.”), 4/10/23 [DE No. 429], ¶ 77. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 76, the Redding Defendants’ denial is evasive as the facts are clear on the face of the document that it presents no lawful or factual cause for such invasion and seizure.” Pl’s Req., at 1. The Town Defendants’ Answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise is based impermissibly on her subjective interpretation of the viability of her claims, which is premised on a finding of fact reserved for the jury and/or on a legal conclusion. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-46, the Town Defendants intend in good faith to controvert all the allegations in Paragraph 76 and, as such, have properly denied them generally. Accordingly, Paragraph 76 has been adequately answered and requires no revisions. 3 C. Paragraph 77 Paragraph 77 of the Operative Complaint provides: “Nevertheless, Judge D’Andrea issued the requested warrant on March 9, 2021, purporting to authorize the immediate seizure of 65 goats from plaintiff’s property and invade her home.” Compl., ¶ 77. In response, the Town Defendants answered: “So much of Paragraph 77 as alleges ‘and invade her home,’ is denied. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 77 are admitted.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 77. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 77, Redding Defendants’ denial that the warrant purported to authorize invasion of Plaintiff’s home is an evasive denial insofar as an invasion of her home occurred under the assumed authorization as stated in the warrant.” Pl’s Req., at 1. The Town Defendants’ answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise is based impermissibly on her subjective interpretation of the viability of her claims, which is premised on a finding of fact reserved for the jury. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-46, the Town Defendants have denied only the particular language of Paragraph 77 to which they in good faith object; the remainder of Paragraph 77 was admitted. Accordingly, Paragraph 77 has been adequately answered and requires no revisions. D. Paragraph 78 Paragraph 78 of the Operative Complaint provides: “Plaintiff had previously vacated her home of 35 years and was no longer living in Redding due to her fears and anxiety, inter alia, of the defendants 4 and the tactics they were unscrupulously employing to harass her and interfere with the Mothers Milk Project.” Compl., ¶ 78, In response, the Town Defendants answered: “So much of Paragraph 78 as alleges, ‘and the tactics they were unscrupulously employing to harass her and interfere with the Mothers Milk Project,’ is denied. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 78, the Redding Defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief and, therefore, leave plaintiff to her proof.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 78. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 78, the Defendants’ denial is evasive insofar as the home invasion was on its face unconstitutional and unscrupulous.” Pl’s Req., at 1. The Town Defendants’ answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise is based impermissibly on her subjective interpretation of the viability of her claims, which is premised on a finding of fact reserved for the jury. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-46, the Town Defendants have denied only the particular language of Paragraph 78 to which they in good faith object, and have left plaintiff to her proof as to her alleged vacation of her home and her purported reasons therefor, about which the Town Defendants lack personal knowledge. Accordingly, Paragraph 78 has been adequately answered and requires no revisions. E. Paragraph 81(e) Paragraph 81(e) of the Operative Complaint provides: That the Town of Redding, per its town counsel, Steven Stafstrom, Esq., had proposed to plaintiff on March 9, 2021 – the very day defendant DellaRocco applied to Judge D’Andrea for a warrant to seize plaintiff’s 5 goats and thereby subject the State of Connecticut and the Town of Redding to significant costs and commitment of significant resources and time, apart from significant legal liabilities – that the Town of Redding would assist financially and in other ways to transfer plaintiff’s goats to SBF Animal Rescue, Inc. on condition that plaintiff drop two lawsuits pending against the Town of Redding concerning the goats, a step plaintiff was fully prepared to take, and which proposal Mr. Stafstrom assured he would pursue forthwith with the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Redding with his strong recommendation that the Board enter into such a commitment. . .. Compl., ¶ 81(e). In response, the Town Defendants answered: “As to the allegations of Paragraph 81(e), the Redding Defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief and, therefore, leave plaintiff to her proof.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 81(e). Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 81e, the Defendants’ response is evasive insofar as it alleges the conduct of their attorney in this matter, Steven Stafstrom, which is imputed to them.” Pl’s Req., at 1. The Town Defendants’ answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Although plaintiff has not provided particular elaboration as to which portion of the response to Paragraph 81(e) she wants revised, it seems, from her motion, that plaintiff would have the Town Defendants ‘admit’ the contents of Paragraph 81(e) based solely on Attorney Stafstrom’s title as Town Attorney. Plaintiff’s narrative recitation of the particularities of her settlement discussions with Attorney Stafstrom and her apparent impressions formed therefrom do not contain information “imputed to” the First Selectman, Chief of Police, or Town proper that would require 6 such details to be admitted. Because the Town Defendants lack sufficient personal knowledge on which to either admit or deny Paragraph 81(e), therefore, Paragraph 81(e) has been adequately answered and requires no revisions. F. Paragraph 81(f) Paragraph 81(f) of the Operative Complaint provides: “That plaintiff was subject to an order issued by Hon. Barbara Bellis, assigned to the Complex Litigation Docket, to appear for a remote hearing on March 10, 2021 at 9 AM in the two cases she had brought involving her goats. . . .” Compl., ¶ 81(f). In response, the Town Defendants answered: “As to the allegations of Paragraph 81(f), the Redding Defendants have insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form an opinion or belief and, therefore, leave plaintiff to her proof.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 81(f). Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 81f, the Defendants’ response is evasive insofar as it alleges conduct of their attorney, Steven Stafstrom, in this matter, which is imputed to them.” Pl’s Req., at 1. Although plaintiff has not provided particular elaboration as to which portion of the response to Paragraph 81(f) she wants revised, and despite her representation that Paragraph 81(f) “alleges conduct of their attorney, Steven Stafstrom . . . which is imputed to them,” Pl’s Req., at 1, a plain reading of Paragraph 81(f) demonstrates that no conduct of Attorney Stafstrom is alleged. Rather, Paragraph 81(f) describes plaintiff’s participation in a remote hearing before this Court, about which allegations the Town Defendants lack sufficient personal knowledge on which to either admit or deny them as alleged. Accordingly, Paragraph 81(f) has been adequately answered and requires no revisions. 7 G. Paragraph 89 Plaintiff’s Request to Revise states: “As to Paragraph 89, Redding Defendants’ assertion that the Complaint does not contain a Paragraph 89 is simply incorrect; Paragraph 89 appears without indentation at the end of Paragraph 88.” Pl’s Req., at 1. Paragraph 89 of the Operative Complaint, which is not set forth on a separate line and, in fact, is not even separated by a space from the conclusion of Paragraph 88 to which it is appended, provides: “By such conduct as set forth hereinabove, the defendants have committed deliberate and malicious cruelty and abuse of plaintiff’s goats.” Pl’s Compl., ¶¶ 88-89. In response, the Town Defendants answered: “The Substituted Fifth Amended Complaint does not contain a Paragraph 89 and, as such, the Redding Defendants provide no response as to Paragraph 89.” Defs’ Answer, ¶ 89. The Town Defendants, in responding to Paragraph 88, answered: “Paragraph 88 is denied.” Id., ¶ 88. This response necessarily encompasses and answers the allegations of plaintiff’s purported “Paragraph 89,” which are included in Paragraph 88 without break or separation in contravention of Practice Book § 10-1, which requires that a complaint’s “plain and concise statement of the material facts on which the pleader relies . . . be divided into paragraphs numbered consecutively. . . .” Practice Book § 10-1. Thus, “Paragraph 89” is actually part of Paragraph 88. The Town Defendants’ answer is not evasive and is sufficient to satisfy their pleading obligations under Practice Book §§ 10-46 and 10-47. Plaintiff’s Request to Revise is based impermissibly on her subjective interpretation of the viability of her claims, which is premised on a finding of fact reserved for 8 the jury and/or on a legal conclusion. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-46, the Town Defendants intend in good faith to controvert all the allegations in Paragraph 88 and, therefore, “Paragraph 89.” As such, the Town Defendants have properly denied these allegations generally. Practice Book § 10-46. Paragraph 89 has been adequately answered and requires no revisions. H. The Remaining Paragraphs Requested to be Revised As to the remaining paragraphs requested to be revised (Paragraphs 88, 93 (a)-(g), Count Three Paragraphs 93-96, Count Four Paragraphs 92 and 93, Count Five Paragraph 92, Count Six Paragraphs 92- 98, Count Seven Paragraphs 92-97, Count Eight Paragraphs 92 and 93, Count Nine Paragraph 94, and Count Eleven Paragraphs 93-95), the denials of which plaintiff classifies only as “evasive,” are nonetheless entirely proper. As noted, the Practice Book requires only that, in denying allegations of a Complaint, a defendant generally deny particular paragraphs if the defendant intends in good faith to controvert all allegations contained therein. Practice Book § 10-46. As to each of these additional paragraphs, the Town Defendants intend in good faith to generally deny each such allegation contained therein; have complied with their obligations under the Practice Book; and need not revise their denials. I. Plaintiff’s Non-Compliance with Practice Book Rules Finally, plaintiff’s motion has not complied with the Practice Book on its face. Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-36, in making this motion plaintiff must “set forth, for each requested revision, the portion of the pleading sought to be revised, the requested revision, and the reasons therefor.” Practice Book § 10-36. Plaintiff has identified numbered paragraphs for revision and has labeled the Town Defendants’ responses as “evasive,” in most cases without any additional information or specificity. 9 Plaintiff has not, however, stated with particularity what revisions she is requesting or why and, thus, has plainly failed to comply with Practice Book § 10-36. Plaintiff has also waited an inexcusable five months to make these revision requests, but provides no explanation as to the cause of such delay. As the Practice Book requires, Requests to Revise brought pursuant to § 10-35 must be timely brought within thirty (30) days of the filing of the pleading sought to be revised. See Practice Book § 10-7 (“The order of pleading shall be as follows: . . . (5) The defendant’s answer (including any special defenses) to the complaint. (6) The plaintiff’s request to revise the defendant’s answer. . . .”); id., §10-8 (“[A]ny subsequent pleadings, motions and requests shall advance at least one step within each successive period of thirty days from the preceding pleading . . . .”). Accordingly, for these additional reasons, plaintiff’s Request to Revise should be denied. VI. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Town of Redding, Julia Pemberton, and Mark O’Donnell, respectfully request that the Court deny plaintiff’s Request to Revise their Answer. DEFENDANTS, TOWN OF REDDING, JULIA PEMBERTON AND MARK O’DONNELL BY/ss/James N. Tallberg James N. Tallberg Kimberly A. Bosse Karsten & Tallberg, LLC 500 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4B Rocky Hill, CT 06067 T: (860)233-5600 F: (860)233-5800 jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com 10 CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was provided by U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, or electronic mail pursuant to Practice Book § 10-13 on October 11, 2023, to the following pro se parties and counsel of record: Nancy Burton, Pro Se David B. Stanhill 154 Highland Avenue Michael D. Riseberg Rowayton, CT 06853 Christine N. Parisi (203) 313-1510 53 State Street NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Boston, MA 02109 (667) 330-7102 dstanill@rubinrudman.com mriseberg@rubinrudman.com cparise@rubinrudman.com Daniel Salton, Esq. Steve Stafstrom, Esq. Matthew Levine, Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC Carole Briggs, Esq. 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006 AG-Environmental Bridgeport, CT 06601 165 Capitol Avenue, 5th Floor sstafstrom@pullcom.com Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 808-5172 Daniel.Salton@ct.gov Matthew.Levine@ct.gov Carole.Briggs@ct.gov Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq. Howd & Ludorf, LLC 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 (860) 249-1361 pnewbury@hl-law.com BY /ss/Kimberly A. Bosse Kimberly A. Bosse 11