On April 21, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nancy Burton,
and
Bryan Hurlburt,Commissioner,Ct Dept Of Agriculture,
Building Department, Town Of Redding Ct,
Charles Dellarocco, Animal Control Officer,Ct Dept. Of Agriculture,
David Philip Mason,
Dennis Gibbon,
Department Of Agriculture,State Of Connecticut,
Elinore Carmody,
Health Department,Town Of Redding Ct Town Hall,Redding,
Julia Pemberton First Selectman,Town Or Redding,
Mark O'Donnell Chief Of Police,
Police Department,Town Of Redding Ct Town Hall,
Susan Winters,
Town Of Redding,Connecticut C O Town Clerk,
for M00 - Misc - Injunction
in the District Court of New Haven County.
Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S
NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff :
: COMPLEX LITIGATION
v. : DOCKET
: AT WATERBURY
DAVID PHILIP MASON, Et Al. :
Defendants : SEPTEMBER 10, 2021
OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT (ENTRY NO. 188.00)
Defendants, State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“Department”), Bryan P.
Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“Commissioner”), and Charles DellaRocco, State
Animal Control Officer (hereinafter referred to collectively as “State Defendants”) hereby object
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Postponement (Motion for Order, Entry No. 188.00). The parties,
including State Defendants, have been aware of, and preparing for, argument on various motions
to dismiss for months. The scheduled arguments were originally scheduled to take place in
August. The one-month delay provided Plaintiff additional time to prepare. Plaintiff’s Motion
for Postponement is yet another attempt to delay reaching the merits of State Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss and delay this proceeding in general.
Plaintiff’s first justification to delay argument is without merit. Plaintiff alleges that she
“only lately learned that Ms. Buonomo is out of state.” State Defendants are perplexed by
Plaintiff’s assertion that this witness is so critical to her defense and yet she has only recently
attempted to contact her to serve as a fact witness. Plaintiff further asserts that her attempts to
contact Ms. Buonomo “have gone unanswered” but she has “hopes of a response.” Not only has
Plaintiff failed to secure this fact witness, despite ample time to do so, but there is also no clear
indication of when this witness will be available, if at all. Plaintiff’s expectation that Ms.
Buonomo will serve as a witness, at some future date, is speculative and does not warrant
delaying these proceedings. Furthermore, the undersigned’s good-faith recollection is that the
Court has not yet determined whether witnesses are warranted to dispose of the scheduled
motions or if evidence will be permitted at argument. State Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
based principally on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. It is unclear how Ms. Buonomo is
qualified to “verify Plaintiff’s argument that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not applicable
here” or what testimony she can provide. Calling a fact witness to testify about her testimony in
a separate cause of action is completely inappropriate. This Court can simply take judicial notice
of the testimony in those proceedings. Offering a transcript of those proceedings would be a
more accurate and appropriate method of presenting such evidence.
Plaintiff’s second justification to delay argument is both without merit and completely
immaterial to these proceedings. It is unclear, in reading Plaintiff’s motion, what a production
request in a separate cause of action can possibly say about the applicability of governmental
immunity in this case. While Plaintiff falsely alleges that the numerical calculations for the cost
of care of the goats has been “hidden,” the undersigned has already explained to Plaintiff that the
maintenance costs are set by statute. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a(h). Plaintiff has failed to
explain how a pending production request in a separate cause of action is material to the present
case. As further evidence that this is intended simply to delay reaching a decision on the Motion
to Dismiss, the production requests complained of by Plaintiff were filed on September 8, 2021,
only one day prior to the filing of this Motion for Postponement. This claimed justification is
either a baseless attempt to avoid the merits of State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or a
calculated maneuver to circumvent this Court’s ability to control discovery during this stage of
the proceedings.
For all the foregoing reasons, Motion for Postponement should be DENIED.
DEFENDANTS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BRYAN P. HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER OF
AGRICULTURE
CHARLES DELLAROCCO, STATE ANIMAL
CONTROL OFFICER
WILLIAM TONG
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: ___434270_____________________________
Jonathan E. Harding
Assistant Attorney General
Juris No. 434270
165 Capitol Ave.
Hartford, CT 06106
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Objection was delivered
electronically to the following counsel and self-represented parties September 10, 2021:
Nancy Burton
154 Highland Ave.
Rowayton, CT 06853
NancyBurtonCT@aol.com
Robert Scott Hillson, Esq.
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
rhillson@rubinrudman.com
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq.
Howd & Ludorf, LLC
65 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
pnewbury@hl-law.com
Steve Stafstrom, Esq.
Pullman & Comley, LLC
850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601
sstafstrom@pullcom.com
James N. Tallberg, Esq.
Kimberly A. Bosse, Esq.
Karsten & Tallberg, LLC
500 Enterprise Dr., Suite 4B
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com
kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com
Alexander William Ahrens, Esq.
Melick & Porter, LLC
900 Main Street South
Suite 102
Southbury, CT 06488
____434270_________________________
Jonathan E. Harding
Commissioner of the Superior Court
Related Content
in New Haven County
Preview
DOCKET NO. (X06) UWY-CV21-5028294-S NANCY BURTON : SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff : : COMPLEX LITIGATION v. : DOCKET : AT WATERBURY DAVID PHILIP MASON, Et Al. : Defendants : SEPTEMBER 10, 2021 OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT (ENTRY NO. 188.00) Defendants, State of Connecticut Department of Agriculture (“Department”), Bryan P. Hurlburt, Commissioner of Agriculture (“Commissioner”), and Charles DellaRocco, State Animal Control Officer (hereinafter referred to collectively as “State Defendants”) hereby object to Plaintiff’s Motion for Postponement (Motion for Order, Entry No. 188.00). The parties, including State Defendants, have been aware of, and preparing for, argument on various motions to dismiss for months. The scheduled arguments were originally scheduled to take place in August. The one-month delay provided Plaintiff additional time to prepare. Plaintiff’s Motion for Postponement is yet another attempt to delay reaching the merits of State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and delay this proceeding in general. Plaintiff’s first justification to delay argument is without merit. Plaintiff alleges that she “only lately learned that Ms. Buonomo is out of state.” State Defendants are perplexed by Plaintiff’s assertion that this witness is so critical to her defense and yet she has only recently attempted to contact her to serve as a fact witness. Plaintiff further asserts that her attempts to contact Ms. Buonomo “have gone unanswered” but she has “hopes of a response.” Not only has Plaintiff failed to secure this fact witness, despite ample time to do so, but there is also no clear indication of when this witness will be available, if at all. Plaintiff’s expectation that Ms. Buonomo will serve as a witness, at some future date, is speculative and does not warrant delaying these proceedings. Furthermore, the undersigned’s good-faith recollection is that the Court has not yet determined whether witnesses are warranted to dispose of the scheduled motions or if evidence will be permitted at argument. State Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is based principally on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. It is unclear how Ms. Buonomo is qualified to “verify Plaintiff’s argument that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not applicable here” or what testimony she can provide. Calling a fact witness to testify about her testimony in a separate cause of action is completely inappropriate. This Court can simply take judicial notice of the testimony in those proceedings. Offering a transcript of those proceedings would be a more accurate and appropriate method of presenting such evidence. Plaintiff’s second justification to delay argument is both without merit and completely immaterial to these proceedings. It is unclear, in reading Plaintiff’s motion, what a production request in a separate cause of action can possibly say about the applicability of governmental immunity in this case. While Plaintiff falsely alleges that the numerical calculations for the cost of care of the goats has been “hidden,” the undersigned has already explained to Plaintiff that the maintenance costs are set by statute. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-329a(h). Plaintiff has failed to explain how a pending production request in a separate cause of action is material to the present case. As further evidence that this is intended simply to delay reaching a decision on the Motion to Dismiss, the production requests complained of by Plaintiff were filed on September 8, 2021, only one day prior to the filing of this Motion for Postponement. This claimed justification is either a baseless attempt to avoid the merits of State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or a calculated maneuver to circumvent this Court’s ability to control discovery during this stage of the proceedings. For all the foregoing reasons, Motion for Postponement should be DENIED. DEFENDANTS STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BRYAN P. HURLBURT, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE CHARLES DELLAROCCO, STATE ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER WILLIAM TONG ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: ___434270_____________________________ Jonathan E. Harding Assistant Attorney General Juris No. 434270 165 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT 06106 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Objection was delivered electronically to the following counsel and self-represented parties September 10, 2021: Nancy Burton 154 Highland Ave. Rowayton, CT 06853 NancyBurtonCT@aol.com Robert Scott Hillson, Esq. 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109 rhillson@rubinrudman.com Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq. Howd & Ludorf, LLC 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06114 pnewbury@hl-law.com Steve Stafstrom, Esq. Pullman & Comley, LLC 850 Main Street, P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 sstafstrom@pullcom.com James N. Tallberg, Esq. Kimberly A. Bosse, Esq. Karsten & Tallberg, LLC 500 Enterprise Dr., Suite 4B Rocky Hill, CT 06067 jtallberg@kt-lawfirm.com kbosse@kt-lawfirm.com Alexander William Ahrens, Esq. Melick & Porter, LLC 900 Main Street South Suite 102 Southbury, CT 06488 ____434270_________________________ Jonathan E. Harding Commissioner of the Superior Court