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 : NOVEMBER 2, 2021
OBJECTION TO MOTION TO REARGUE (ENTRY NO. 249.00)
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 to Reargue (Entry No. 249.00) State Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Entry
No. 122.00). There is no basis for reargument. This Motion to Reargue, like the Complaint
itself, lacks any facts to support the legal conclusions that are so cavalierly strewn throughout
Plaintiff’s moving papers.
To begin, Plaintiff is not simply seeking reargument regarding State Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss, she is now seeking an evidentiary hearing in conjunction with reargument. Plaintiff
offers no law in support of her suggestion that the Court’s determination that an evidentiary
hearing was not necessary, to rule on a subject matter jurisdiction motion to dismiss, can form an
independent basis for reargument. Plaintiff alleges that “when issues of fact are necessary to the
determination of a court’s jurisdiction, due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held.”
Ruisi v. O'Sullivan, 132 Conn. App. 1, 5, 30 A.3d 14 (2011). Puzzlingly, Plaintiff offers no legal
or factual support for this argument that issues of fact are necessary to resolve the question of
1
subject matter jurisdiction in this case. To the extent that the “necessity of a hearing” issue is
critical to her Motion to Reargue, Plaintiff’s decision not to support this creative argument is
fatal to its consideration as an independent basis for reargument. In any event, this motion must
fail as it does not fall into any recognized category of reasons for reargument.
"The purpose of a reargument is . . . to demonstrate to the court that there is some
decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been
overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts. . . . It also may be used to address .
. . claims of law that the movant claimed were not addressed by the court. . . . A motion to
reargue however is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple . . . ."
Liberti v. Liberti, 132 Conn. App. 869, 874 (2012). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this
motion is anything more that an attempt to “have a second bite of the apple.” Defendant fails to
demonstrate any of the recognized grounds for reargument.
Plaintiff points to no mistaken findings of fact relied on by the Court. Rather, Plaintiff
alleges alternate facts, many of which are false, misleading, or irrelevant, that she failed to offer
in opposition to State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Some of the allegations that Plaintiff now
raises are not in the record of this case at all. Plaintiff contorts the purpose of “reargument” by
suggesting that the Court, in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, misapprehended facts not before
her and that the Court should have looked to other unsupported allegations that Plaintiff makes in
another forum. (Mot. To Reargue, Entry 249.00, Nov. 1, 2021, at 6.) Plaintiff points to no
misapprehension of facts that led to the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reargue contains a “Legal Argument” section that states “[b]y this
motion, Plaintiff does not challenge the legal authorities cited in the decision but challenges the
application of the law to the unique and troubling facts of this case.” (Mot. To Reargue, Entry
2
249.00, Nov. 1, 2021, at 7.) Plaintiff then summarily ends her motion with a completely
unsupported and conclusory assertion that her Complaint has alleged enough to overcome
sovereign immunity with regard to only two of her counts, one of which wasn’t dismissed.
Plaintiff offers no controlling statute or legal doctrine that would have had controlling effect had
it been applied. Plaintiff’s arguments fall well short of demonstrating that the Court overlooked
a principle of law that would have had controlling effect. There is no basis for reargument.
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reargue must 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
3
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Objection was delivered electronically to the
following counsel and self-represented parties November 2, 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
4
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 : NOVEMBER 2, 2021 OBJECTION TO MOTION TO REARGUE (ENTRY NO. 249.00) 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 to Reargue (Entry No. 249.00) State Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Entry No. 122.00). There is no basis for reargument. This Motion to Reargue, like the Complaint itself, lacks any facts to support the legal conclusions that are so cavalierly strewn throughout Plaintiff’s moving papers. To begin, Plaintiff is not simply seeking reargument regarding State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, she is now seeking an evidentiary hearing in conjunction with reargument. Plaintiff offers no law in support of her suggestion that the Court’s determination that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary, to rule on a subject matter jurisdiction motion to dismiss, can form an independent basis for reargument. Plaintiff alleges that “when issues of fact are necessary to the determination of a court’s jurisdiction, due process requires that a trial-like hearing be held.” Ruisi v. O'Sullivan, 132 Conn. App. 1, 5, 30 A.3d 14 (2011). Puzzlingly, Plaintiff offers no legal or factual support for this argument that issues of fact are necessary to resolve the question of 1 subject matter jurisdiction in this case. To the extent that the “necessity of a hearing” issue is critical to her Motion to Reargue, Plaintiff’s decision not to support this creative argument is fatal to its consideration as an independent basis for reargument. In any event, this motion must fail as it does not fall into any recognized category of reasons for reargument. "The purpose of a reargument is . . . to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts. . . . It also may be used to address . . . claims of law that the movant claimed were not addressed by the court. . . . A motion to reargue however is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple . . . ." Liberti v. Liberti, 132 Conn. App. 869, 874 (2012). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this motion is anything more that an attempt to “have a second bite of the apple.” Defendant fails to demonstrate any of the recognized grounds for reargument. Plaintiff points to no mistaken findings of fact relied on by the Court. Rather, Plaintiff alleges alternate facts, many of which are false, misleading, or irrelevant, that she failed to offer in opposition to State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Some of the allegations that Plaintiff now raises are not in the record of this case at all. Plaintiff contorts the purpose of “reargument” by suggesting that the Court, in ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, misapprehended facts not before her and that the Court should have looked to other unsupported allegations that Plaintiff makes in another forum. (Mot. To Reargue, Entry 249.00, Nov. 1, 2021, at 6.) Plaintiff points to no misapprehension of facts that led to the Court’s ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reargue contains a “Legal Argument” section that states “[b]y this motion, Plaintiff does not challenge the legal authorities cited in the decision but challenges the application of the law to the unique and troubling facts of this case.” (Mot. To Reargue, Entry 2 249.00, Nov. 1, 2021, at 7.) Plaintiff then summarily ends her motion with a completely unsupported and conclusory assertion that her Complaint has alleged enough to overcome sovereign immunity with regard to only two of her counts, one of which wasn’t dismissed. Plaintiff offers no controlling statute or legal doctrine that would have had controlling effect had it been applied. Plaintiff’s arguments fall well short of demonstrating that the Court overlooked a principle of law that would have had controlling effect. There is no basis for reargument. For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reargue must 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 3 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing Objection was delivered electronically to the following counsel and self-represented parties November 2, 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 4