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.                                                   SEPTEMBER 9, 2021


                     PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT
   Plaintiff moves that the hearing scheduled to take place on the State Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss (#1 22) on September 13, 2021 be postponed to a date in October, as
explained below.
   Plaintiff respectfully represents as follows:
   A centerpiece of the State Defendants’ argument in their Motion to Dismiss is a
defense grounded in the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
    Plaintiff principally relies on a recognized exception to the doctrine available when
the action seeks declaratory or injunctive relief on the basis of a substantial allegation of
wrongful conduct on the part of the state or its officers to promote an illegal purpose in
excess of the state/officer’s statutory authority. Columbia Air Services, Inc. v.
Department of Transportation et al., 293 Conn. 342, 349 (2009). This exception is
central to Counts Six (Illegal Search and Seizure) and Seven (Violation of 42 U.S. Code
§1983) of the Second Amended Complaint and is applicable to other counts as well]
    The State Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Sixth and Seventh Count claims fail to
allege facts that support this exception. Plaintiff disagrees; her Memorandum in,
Opposition to the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss addresses this issue at pages 4-
6. She argues that the state seizure of her healthy, well-tended goats pursuant to a
search warrant procured in bad faith on the basis of deliberately false information is the
very definition of wrongful conduct to promote an illegal purpose — seizure of healthy,
well-tended goats and invasion of a private home to harass and terrorize Plaintiff — to
promote an illegal purpose in excess of the state/officer’s statutory authority, namely,
when the state/officer’s statutory authority is limited to seizure of abused and neglected
animals.
   Nevertheless, Plaintiff wishes to expand upon her argument by identifying facts and
circumstances that have arisen since filing her Memorandum in Opposition on July 22)
2021, including the following:
   (1) Unavailability of Key Witnes:

    Plaintiff intends to call Rosa Buonomo, president, Stoney Brook Farm, Inc., a
501(c)(3) animal rescue sanctuary located in Harwinton, Connecticut, as a witness at
the hearing on the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Ms. Buonomo testified on April
8, 2021 in the related case of Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV-21-6139702-
S. Inter alia, Ms. Buonomo testified about her first-hand familiarity with Plaintiff, her
property and her care of her goats. She testified that Plaintiff's goats were uniformly
healthy, well fed with copious quantities of feed, hay, pasture vegetation and water, well
cared for with appropriate access to veterinary and other care, were afforded adequate
and sufficient shelter, including three newly refurbished shelters, had ample opportunity
for exercising and recreation, and gave every indication of leading healthy, happy lives
with all their needs met. She testified that she had previously adopted some 23 of
Plaintiff's goats and that State Defendant DellaRocco had gone to her sanctuary to
check them out prior to the seizure and was satisfied that they were healthy and well
cared for and no cause existed for their seizure by the State Defendants. As the Court
(Cobb, J.) was aware, Ms.Buonomo’s organization was willing to adopt all of Plaintiff's
goats even prior to the March 10, 2021 seizure and that she and Plaintiff had an
appointment to transfer 28 more goats to her sanctuary for adoption the weekend prior
to the seizure but snow and ice forced a postponement.
    Judge Cobb ignored all of Ms. Buonomo’s testimony and made various findings of
fact which were utterly unsupported by the evidence presented at the hearing. The
State Defendants rely heavily on Judge Cobb's April 9, 2021 ruling to support their
Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, Ms. Buonomo is a critical witness to support and verify
Plaintiff's argument that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not applicable here
because Plaintiff has presented a substantial allegation of wrongful conduct on the part
of the state or its officers to promote an illegal purpose in excess of the state/officer’s
statutory authority —i.e., the State Defendants’ wrongful conduct in seizing the healthy,
well-cared-for goats defeats their assertion of sovereign immunity and the factual issues
are seriously in dispute.
     Plaintiff has only lately learned that Ms. Buonomo is out of state tending to a seriously
ill relative in a hospital where she lacks reliable access to the Internet and remote
proceedings. She is to be relieved by other relatives in this caretaking task early in
October. In the meantime, Plaintiff has been virtually unable to communicate with her,
Plaintiff's frequent messages have gone unanswered, and she has been unable to learn
the scheduled October date of her return to Connecticut. Plaintiff has delayed this filing
with hopes of a response.
    Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the hearing be postponed pending the availability
of Ms. Buonomo in early October, as to which Plaintiff will keep the Court informed.
   (2) Release of New Material Information
    The Office of the Attorney General — on behalf of the State Defendants — notified
Plaintiff herein on September 8, 2021 that as of September 1, 2021, the total veterinary
costs for her goats are $12,333.20 and the total daily maintenance costs are
$241,335.00. The two sets of costs total $253,668.20 — potentially chargeable to
Plaintiff - were calculated from March 10, 2021, the date of the illegal seizure. Over
many months, Plaintiff has sought through discovery and Freedom of Information
requests information about these rapidly rising “costs” and documentation. To date, the
State Defendants have refused these requests.
   These numerical calculations had been hidden from Plaintiff by the State Defendants
when she filed her July 22, 2021 Memorandum in Opposition to their Motion to Dismiss.
    On April 16, 2021, in the related case of Jeremiah Dunn v. 65 Goats et al., HHD-CV-
21-6139702-S, Plaintiff had filed her Motion to Relinquish Ownership of Goats for
Immediate Release to Qualified Animal Rescue Sanctuaries and Individuals as
Identified by Defendant [Plaintiff herein] (#142). She filed her Motion for Immediate
Release (#176.00) on May 14, 2021.
   Although such motions, if granted, would have freed the goats from the deplorable
conditions of their state confinement to well-vetted facilities and individuals willing to
take them in and care for them for the duration of their natural lives at no cost to the
state, the State Defendants have continuously opposed such efforts without legitimate
cause in deference to their obvious aim in the litigation to penalize Plaintiff to the tune of
hundreds of thousands of dollars out of malice, bad faith and disregard for the welfare of
the goats — an extraordinary abuse which supports Plaintiff's assertion of an exception
to the doctrine of sovereign immunity!
    Accordingly, Plaintiff requests a postponement of the hearing to incorporate these
facts in her opposition and to prepare this aspect of her opposition to be presented at
the hearing on the State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.




                                   THE PLAINTIFF



                                    Na        on
                                    147 Cross Highway
                                    Redding CT 06896
                                    Tel. 203-313-1510
                                    NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
ORDER
The foregoing motion having been heard, it is hereby ordered
GRANTED/DENIED


                                          BY THE COURT



                                                 JUDGE/CLERK




                                    CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing was electronically delivered on September




                                          aa
9, 2021 to all counsel of record.