Preview
D.N. CV 16 6021915 SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT SATA WHITE J. D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
V. AT MILFORD
JERALD BARBER and
WILLIAMS AND BARBER JANUARY 22, 2019
MEMORANUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FACTS:
On March 12, 2018, the Plaintiff disclosed Attorney Joshua Goodbaum as his expert
witness in accordance with Practice Book Section 13-4. The disclosure included the contact
information for Attorney Goodbaum, a Curriculum Vitae, his field of expertise — Labor &
Employment Law and his expert opinion in an Affidavit by Attorney Goodbaum dated
March
12, 2018 (Exhibit A).
Attorney Goodbaum has been available for deposition since he was disclosed on March
12, 2018.
On September 4, 2018, the undersigned mistakenly did not appear for a pretrial in this
matter. Subsequent to the non-appearance, Judge Stevens issued a JDNO notice which stated the
following:
“ORDER: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This case is scheduled to start jury selection on
September 18, 2018. At the final trial management/judicial settlement conference held in this
case on September 4, 2018, the defendant appeared and the plaintiff did not. The defendant
represented that the plaintiff has not disclosed an expert in this legal malpractice case. On the
basis of the above, the plaintiff is ORDERED to appear before the court on Monday, September
24, 2018 and show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The trial
scheduled for September 18, 2018 is marked off.” (Exhibit B)
The notice does NOT state “all costs of this of this deposition, including the expert’s fee
for the deposition, shall be borne and paid for by the plaintiff.”
On September 21, 2018, the undersigned filed the attached “Showing of Cause” (Exhibit
C)
On September 24, 2018, the undersigned appeared in court and argued the “Showing of
Cause” before Judge Stevens.
On October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Permit
Filing of Motion for Summary Judgment”.
On October 10, 2018 a new trial date of May 7, 2019 was scheduled by Judge Tyma
(Exhibit D).
In early November, 2017, Defendant attempted to notice a deposition of Attorney
Goodbaum for November 7, 2018 (Exhibit E) When the undersigned received the notice he
promptly sent the Defendant an email that noted that pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-
4(c)(2) the party taking the deposition was responsible for the payment of the expert fees for the
deposition and would have to pay those up front: “(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the judicial
authority for good cause shown, or agreed upon by the parties, the fees and expenses of the
expert witness for any such deposition, excluding preparation time, shall be paid by the party or
parties taking the deposition.”
Defendant did not respond to the undersigned’s email and the deposition did not take
place. Defendant never re-noticed the deposition.
On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant the “Second Affidavit of Joshua R.
Goodbaum, Esq.” dated January 17, 2019 (Exhibit F) in anticipation of being permitted to file a
new Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion for Leave to file a new Motion for
Summary Judgment is pending and has been marked ready today.
On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the expert was available for
deposition the week of January 28, 2019. The Defendant did not respond.
STANDARD:
Practice Book section 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith
if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as
to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.”
ARGUMENT:
Genuine issues of material fact exist as to the one count Complaint of legal malpractice
and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.
As Defendant states in his Memorandum of Law, in a legal malpractice action a Plaintiff
must establish “(1) the existence of an attorney client relationship; (2) the attorney’s wrongful act
or omission; (3) causation; and (4) damages. Grimm v. Fox, 303, 329-30, 33 A.3d 205 (2012).
It is undisputed that there was an attorney client relationship and that the Plaintiff has
alleged the wrongful act for failing to file an Objection to a Summary Judgment Motion and a
Memorandum in Support in the case at issue (Robert Satawhite v. City of Bridgeport AAN CV
14 6077396 S (“Satawhite v. City of Bridgeport”)
Genuine issues of material fact exist as to causation and damages. Attorney Joshua
Goodbaum was disclosed on March 12, 2018 (Exhibit A). At that time, he provided an initial
Affidavit stating that failing to file an opposition to Summary Judgment in Satawhite v. City of
Bridgeport was malpractice (Exhibit A). Attorney Goodbaum has been available to be deposed
since March 12, 2018.
Recently, in anticipation of filing a Plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment,
Attorney Goodbaum provided an affidavit dated January 17, 2019 providing opinion as to a
result in Satawhite v. City of Bridgeport (Exhibit F).
In addition, multiple exhibits and an argument in favor of legal malpractice have been
provided to the Defendant supporting Plaintiff's claim of legal malpractice in the Plaintiff's
March 13, 2018 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.
In addition, Plaintiff intends to file a second Motion for Summary Judgment including
Attorney Goodbaum’s second affidavit when permission for leave is granted by the Court.
CONCLUSION:
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment dated January
10, 2019 should be denied.
THE PLAINTIFF:
By:__/s/
Daniel H. Kryzanski, Esq.
Law Offices of Daniel H. Kryzanski
30 Ferry Blvd., #2
Stratford, CT 06615
Phone: (203) 380-1384
Fax: (203) 380-1598
Juris #: 408785
CERTIFICATION:
[hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered on the above date to:
Jerald Barber,Esq.
85 Mumford Road
New Haven, CT 06515
Williams and Barber
85 Mumford Road
New Haven, CT 06515
/s/ Daniel H. Kryzanski
D.N. CV 16 6021915 SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT SATAWHITE J. D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
Vv. AT MILFORD
JERALD BARBER and
WILLIAMS AND BARBER MARCH 12, 2018
PRACTICE BOOK SECTION 13-4
EXP. WI! 'S DI
Pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-4, the Plaintiff hereby makes the following expert
witness disclosure:
Joshua R. Goodbaum, Attorney, Garrison, Levin-Epstein, F itzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C.,
New Haven, CT.
Curriculum Vitae — Attached.
Field of Expertise: Labor & Employment Law
Expert Opinion: Failure to file a substantive response to a motion for summary judgment
is legal malpractice (See attached affidavit). Failure to file a substantive response without the
client’s permission was legal malpractice ( See attached affidavit).
THE PLAINTIFF:
By:__/s/
Daniel H. Kryzanski, Esq.
Law Offices of Daniel H. Kryzanski
30 Ferry Blvd., #2
Stratford, CT 06615
Phone: (203) 380-1384
Fax: (203) 380-1598
Juris #: 408785
CERTIFICATION:
Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered on the above date to:
Jerald Barber,Esq.
85 Mumford Road
New Haven, CT 06515
Williams and Barber
85 Mumford Road
New Haven, CT 06515
ds D: iel H. ski
JOSHUA R. GOODBAUM
Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald, & Pirrotti * 405 Orange Street, New Haven, CT 06511
jgoodbaum@garrisonlaw.com * 203.777.4425 (office)
EDUCATION
HARVARD Law SCHOOL, Cambridge, MA, J.D. magna cum laude, 2009
Activities: Harvard Law Review, Supervising Editor
2007 HLS Public Interest Auction, Co-Chair
YALE UNIVERSITY, New Haven, CT, B.A. magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, with Distinction in
History, 2004
EXPERIENCE
GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN, FITZGERALD, & PIRROTTI, New Haven, CT
201 |-present
Partner (2016-present); Associate (2011-16). Represent individuals in employment and civil
rights cases.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, Washington, DC
2010-2011; Summer 2008
U.S, COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CiRcuIT, Denver, CO
2009-2010
Law Clerk, The Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch.
REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS
Danlages in Common-Law Employment Cases (with Jose} ph D. Garrison), in The Comprehens
ive Guide to Economic
Damages (N. Fannon & J. Dunitz eds., 4th ed. 2016)
Conn. Court Says Goodbye to Garcetti: Recent Ruling Enhances Protections for
Employee Whistleblowers, Connecticut
Law Tribune (2015)
The Supreme Court of Stabili ?: Employment Law in the U.S. Supreme Court, Connecticut Law Tribune (2015)
Handling Suspected Employee Theft (with Nina T. Pirrotti), Connecticut Law Tribune
(2015)
Workplace Bullying: A Problem for Everyone (with Nina T. Pirrotti), Connecticut Law
Tribune (2014)
The Minimum Wage: An Ongoing Debate, ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law:
FLASH (2014)
Alternative Dispute Resolution: Court Reaffirms Commitment to Enforcing Agreements, Connectic
ut Law Tribune (2014)
Recent Case, Criminal Law — Right to a Fair Trial, 121 HARV. L. REV. 2238
(2008)
REPRESENTATIVE SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
Transgender Issues in the Workplace, Connecticut Bar Association
Annual Conference (2017)
How to Bring and Defend an Employment Case, Connecticut Bar Association Young
Lawyers Section (2017)
Annual Labor & Employment Law Update, Connecticut Bar Association Labor & Employm
ent Conference (2017)
Advocating for LGBTO Elders, Connecticut Bar Association Elder Law Section (2016)
Campus Sexual Assault Investigations, District of Connecticut Semi-Annual Bench-B
ar Conference (2016)
Annual Labor & Employment Law Update, Connecticut Bar Association Labor & Employment Conferenc
e (2016)
Employment Law Developments in Connecticut's State & Fede) ral
Courts, Connecticut Bar Association Annual
Conference (2015)
US. and Connecticut Supreme Courts Update, Connecticut Bar Associ
ation Labor & Employment Conference (2014)
Introduction to Wage & Hour Law, Connecticut Women’s Educat
ion and Legal Fund (CWEALF) (2014)
Discovery of Comparator Evidence, National Employment Lawyers
Association Annual Conference (2014)
U.S. Supreme Court Update, Connecticut Bar Association Labor & Emplo
yment Conference (2013)
AWARDS AND SERVICE
Chairman, Connecticut Bar Association, Labor and Emplo
Rising Star, Connecticut Super Lawyers
yment Law Section 2017-18
Secretary, Connecticut Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law 2015-17
Section 2016-17
Treasurer, Connecticut Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section
New Leaders of the Law, Connecticut Law Tribune 2015-16
2015
DOCKET NO.: AAN-CV-16-6021915-S
ROBERT SATAWHITE,
SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff,
J.D, OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
Vv.
AT MILFORD
JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS
AND BARBER,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA R. GOODBAUM, ESQ.
1, Joshua R. Goodbaum, am over the age of eighteen and understand the obligations
of an
oath. I do hereby state the following:
Background
1 1am a lawyer admitted to practice in the States of Connecticut and New York and
a partner at the law firm of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., in
New Haven,
where I represent employees in employment litigation and negotiation.
2 I graduated from Yale University, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, in 2004.
3 L attended Harvard Law School from 2006 to 2009, graduating magna cum laude
(which in 2009 indicated a grade point average in the top 10% of the class). I served as
Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
4 After law school, I served as a judicial law clerk for Associate Justice Neil
M. Gorsuch of the Supreme Court of the United States, when he was a Judge on
the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
5 Following the clerkship, I practiced as an associate attorney at Gibson, Dunn
&
Crutcher LLP in Washington, DC.
6 I joined the law firm now known as Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald &
Pirrotti, P.C., in 2011 and became an equity partner in January 2016.
7
My practice involves the representation of individuals in employment law
disputes. | regularly litigate in the state and federal courts in Connecticut.
8 I charge $400 per hour for my services — a rate which clients regularly pay me.
9, I currently serve, by election, as Chair of the Labor & Employment Law Section
of the Connecticut Bar Association, which has approximately 650 members. I also
serve on the
Executive Committees of the Labor & Employment Law Section and of the Federal Practice
Section.
10. Iam a frequent speaker and writer about issues related to employment law in
Connecticut. By way of example, since 2015, I have presented an annual update of Connecticut
labor and employment law to either the Connecticut Legal Conference or the CBA Labor &
Employment Law Section’s Annual Advanced Employment Law Symposium.
a. My significant study of and experience with employment law and employment
litigation provides me with a special skill or knowledge that is not common to the average
lay
person or even the average member of the Connecticut bar. Accordingly, I am qualified
to serve
as an expert witness concerning employment litigation in Connecticut.
Qpinion
12. I have reviewed the circumstances of the Defendants’ representation of Plaintiff
Satawhite in a 2014 Superior Court lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport.
13, My understanding of the facts of that representation, which I assume to be true,
are as follows:
4. The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport on Plaintiff
Satawhite’s behalf in or about November 2014. That lawsuit was docketed asAAN-C
V14-
6077396-S. (The lawsuit appears to have been filed in the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milf
ord,
although the Complaint refers to the “J.D. of New Haven.”)
b The lawsuit alleged breach of contract and constructive discharge. (The
legal theory of the constructive discharge is not entirely clear, but it seems
to be common law
wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, based on the Plaintiff's
refusal to comply with
an “improper directive.”)
c The City filed a “motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss” in or
about November 2015. (Dkt. No. 111.) On February 12, 2016, the Defend
ants — purportedly
on behalf of Plaintiff Satawhite — filed a self-styled “Reply to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary
Judgment.” The Reply stated, in total: “The plaintiff, Robert Satawhite, by and through his
counsel, has elected to waive his right to file a responsive pleading, waives his right to oral
argument on Defendant’s instant motion|,] and thereby leaves the Defendant to its burden
of
persuasion.” (Dkt. No. 112.) The same day that the “Reply” was filed, the Court granted
the
City’s motion and entered judgment for the City. (Dkt Nos. 111.2 & 113.)
d At no point did the Defendants inform Plaintiff Satawhite that they were
filing the aforementioned “Reply” or that they were waiving his right to oppose
the City’s
motion. Plaintiff Satawhite did not wish to waive his tight to oppose the City’s
motion, nor did
he give the Defendants his consent to do so.
14. In my opinion, based on the above-described facts, the Defendants departed
from
the standard of proper professional skill or care that applies to lawyer
s representing employees in
Connecticut.
15. In my opinion, the filing of the “Reply” without authorization from Plaintiff
Satawhite violated several of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules
1.1, 1.3, and 1.4.
16. In my opinion, there is no reasonable explanation for failing or refusing to oppose
a dispositive motion in an employment case without the informed consent of the client or, ata
minimum, extensive efforts to obtain the informed consent of the client.
17, Thave not been asked to develop an opinion about the merits or value of Plaintiff
Satawhite’s underlying lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport or the likelihood of the City’s
motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss being granted if an opposition had been filed. |
therefore express no opinion as to those questions.
Jo
streot Connecheut _
County of New Haven :
Thereby certify that Joshua R. Goodbaum has read the foregoing Affidavit, understands
the contents thereof, and affirms that it is true, accurate, and complete to the best of his
knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this / aie of March, 2018.
kinda UM Ne athys
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:_/0] 3/ / 0 d/
LINDA M. DeMATTEIS
JDNO NOTICE
AAN-CV-16-6021915-S |SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BARBER, JERALD Et Al
Notice Issued: 09/04/2018
Court Address:
CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT
ANSONIA-MILFORD JD
14 WEST RIVER STREET
PO BOX 210
MILFORD, CT 06460
Website: www.jud.ct.gov
Notice Content:
Notice Issued: 09/04/2018
Docket Number: AAN-CV-16-6021915-S
Case Caption: SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BARBER, JERALD Et Al
Notice Sequence #: 1
JDNO NOTICE
The following order is entered in the above matter:
ORDER:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This case is scheduled to start jury selection on September 18, 2018. At the final trial
management/judicial settlement conference held in this case on September 4, 2018, the
defendant appeared and the plaintiff did not. The defendant represented that the plaintiff has not
disclosed an expert in this legal malpractice case.
On the basis of the above, the plaintiff is ORDERED to appear before the court on Monday,
September 24, 2018 and show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of
prosecution. The trial scheduled for September 18, 2018 is marked off.
BY THE COURT,
STEVENS, J.
9/4/2018
SLB
D.N. CV 16 6021915 SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT SATAWHITE J. D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
Vv. AT MILFORD
JERALD BARBER and
WILLIAMS AND BARBER SEPTEMBER 21, 2018
SHOWING OF CAUSE
The undersigned hereby shows cause as to why the above entitled case should be
schedule for trial after the decision on the pending Summary Judgment Motion in this matter.
In support of this showing, the undersigned states:
1 The undersigned filed a motion for summary judgment on March 12, 2018.
2 Contemporaneously with that filing he served the attached expert disclosure on the
Defendants.
The undersigned was not aware that any pretrial or trial had been scheduled in this
matter as the Motion for Summary Judgment is currently pending.
Since the court date of September 24" was scheduled in this matter, the undersigned
has sent the March 12, 2018 expert disclosure to the Defendants twice with no
acknowledgement.
THE PLAINTIFF:
By:__/s/
Daniel H. Kryzanski, Esq.
Law Offices of Daniel H. Kryzanski
30 Ferry Blvd., #2
Stratford, CT 06615
Phone: (203) 380-1384
Fax: (203) 380-1598
Juris #: 408785
ORDER:
The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered GRANTED/DENIED.
By:
JDNO NOTICE
AAN-CV-16-6021915-S | SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BARBE
R, JERALD Et Al
Notice Issued: 10/10/2018
Court Address:
CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT
ANSONIA-MILFORD JD
14 WEST RIVER STREET
PO BOX 210
MILFORD, CT 06460
Website: www.jud.ct.gov
Mint —
zo01 4
qm
Notice Content:
Notice Issued: 10/10/2018
Aphit
Docket Number: AAN-CV-16-6021915-S po
Case Caption: SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BARBER, JERALD
Et Al
Notice Sequence #: 1
JDNO NOTICE
05/07/2019 AT 9:30AM
NOTICE OF JURY TRIAL
THE ABOVE CASE APPEARING ON THE JURY LIST IS SCHEDULED
FOR JURY SELECTION ON
THE ABOVE CAPTIONED DATE AND TIME. CONTINUANCE REQUE
STS MUST BE IN WRITING AND
STATE WHETHER ANY COUNSEL HAS AN OBJECTION. FAILURE
TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN
DEFAULT, DISMISSAL OR NONSUIT. PLEASE CONSULT THE JUDICIA
L WEBSITE AT
WWW.JUD.CT.GOV FOR ALL CIVIL JURY TRIAL MANAGEMENT
ORDERS.
Contact casefiow to confirm hearing location as matters may
be held in either Derby or Milford.
THEODORE TYMA, PRESIDING JUDGE
Please direct inquiries to:
Charlotte Russell, Caseflow Coordinator
(203) 283-8205
14 W. River Street
Milford, CT. 06460
Charlotte.Russell@jud.ct.gov
D.N. CV 16 6021915
SUPERIOR COURT
ROBERT SATAWHITE
J. D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
V.
AT MILFORD
JERALD BARBER and
WILLIAMS AND BARBER
October 29, 2018
TT DI 0
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on WEDNESDAY,
NOVEMBER 7, 2018, », at 10:00 A.M., the
undersigned attorney will take deposition(s)s of
the following named persons for the purpose of
discovery, for use at trial, or for use of such other Purpo
ses as are permitted under applicable and
governing rules. The depositions will take place at
the law offices of DANIEL HENRY
KRYZANSKI 30 FERRY BLVD. #2 STRATFORD, CT 06615.
Estimated time to complete depositions is two (2)
hours.
1 - Rol whi
12:00- Daniel Henry Kryzanski
2:00-
Atto Joshu
rn a R.ey
Goldbaum
ants,
Jes Barber,Esq.
jams and Barber
5 Mumford Road
New Haven, Connecticut 06515
(203)787-2236
juris No. 408909
jeraldbarberlaw@comcast.net
CERTIFICATION:
Thereby certify that a co py of
the foregoing was delivered via
mail on the above date to: email and USPS regular
Daniel H. Kryzanski, Esq.
Law Offices of Daniel H. Kryzanski
30 Ferry Blvd., #2
Stratford, CT 06615 a
Je S. Barbe
al,
se
Lev Offices of A it
orney Da tel % 4,
30 Ferry Boulev GT, Kry. zanski i
ard, #2
Stratford, CT 0661 5
1
Phone: (203)
380-) 384
ell: (203) 21
Fax: (203) 380-8-15
9200 |
box (203) 332-5618
2
9
831 @aol.com |
ebruary 7, 201]
‘xecutive Director
ffice of Human Reso
urces
'S Lyon Terrace, Room
310
ridgeport, CT 0660
4
Robert Satawhite
ear Sir/Madam,
lease be advised tha
t T represent Mr. Sa
ity of Bridgeport. As tawhi te in regard to
you may know, Mr. his em, ployment
ective Tuesday, May Was suspended wi with
30, 2006, but he has ne th o:
Tminated. ver Teceived any ut pay
formal notice that
. Satawhite would ik| e to know if he
2
which he was t ‘€rminat has been te i
ited and the status of and if so, wh, an
d the
his benefits and pe
nsion.
el H. Kryzanski
ed Robert Satawhite
ane Veta ~ AAN-LV14-6017396
-S
10/29/18, 10:07 AM
ud oh ntestattal| Lee fe
i
Ti Sete)
au
at rea Of tty a OFTTS Bete) aie a =
© AAN-CV14-
6017396-S SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BRIDGEPOR
T BOARD OF EDUCATION
Prefix/Suffix: [none] Case Type: C90
File Date: 11/26/2014 Return Date: 12/02/2014
e
Case Detail
= :
Information Updated as of: 10/29/2018
Case Information
Case Type: C90- Contracts - All other
Court Location: MILFORD JD
List Type: COURT (CT)
Trial List Claim: 09/15/2015
Last Action Date: peen an (The “last action date" is the date
the information was entered inthe
Disposition information
Disposition Date: 02/16/2016
Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT-DEF
ENDANT
Judge or Magistrate: HON FRANK IANNO
TTI
Party & Appearance Information
Party No
aoe Category
ad
P-01 ROBERT SATAWHITE
Attorney: & DANIEL HENRY KRYZAN‘ SKI (408785) Plaintiff
oy 30 FERRY BLVD. #2
File Date: 05/02/2016
STRATFORD, CT 06615
D-01 BRIDGEPORT BOARD OF EDUCATION
Attorney: & BRIDGEPORT CITY ATTO! RNEY Defendant
(006192) File Date: 12/02/2014
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORN:
999 BROAD STREET
BRIDGEPORT, CT 066044328
Viewing Documents on Civil, Housing
and Small Claims Cases:
If there is an €* in front of the do cket number
at the top of this page, then the file is electr
(paperless). onic
. Documents, Court orders and judicial notice
s in electronic (paperless) civil, housing and
claims cases with a return dat te on or after Janu small
a ry 1, 2014 are available publicly over the
internet." For more oe ‘on what you can view in all cases, view the
For civil cases filed prior to 2014, court
orders and judicial notices that are electronic
available publicly over the internet. Orders can are
be viewed by selecting the link to the order
the list below. Notices can be viewed by clickins from
19 the Notices tab above and Selecting the link."
Documents, court orders and judicial notices in
an electroni ic (paperless) file can be viewed
any judicial district courthouse during normal at
business hout rs."
Plead
ings or other documents that a re
not electronic (paperless) ) can be viewed only durin
normal business hours at the Clerk’. 's Office in the g
Judicial Disttrict where the case is located.*
ttp:/ /elvilinquiry jud.ct.gov/CaseDetall/PublicCaseDetall. aspx?D
ocketNo=AANCV14601 7396S
Page 1 of3
DOCKET NO.: AAN-CY-16-6021915-S
ROBERT SATAWHITE,
SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff,
J.D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD
Vv.
AT MILFORD
JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS
AND BARBER,
Defendants.
SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA R. GOODBAUM, ESQ.
I, Joshua R. Goodbaum, am over the age of eighteen and understand the obligations of an
oath. I do hereby state the following:
Background
1 Iam a lawyer admitted to practice in the States of Connecticut and New York and
a partner at the law firm of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., in New Haven,
where I represent employees in employment litigation and negotiation.
2 I graduated from Yale University, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, in 2004.
3 Tattended Harvard Law School from 2006 to 2009, graduating magna cum laude
(which in 2009 indicated a grade point average in the top 10% of the class). During law school, I
served as Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review.
4. After law school, I served as a judicial law clerk for Associate Justice
Neil M. Gorsuch of the Supreme Court of the United States, when he was a Judge on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
5 Following the clerkship, I practiced as an associate attorney at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP in Washington, DC.
6 I joined the law firm now known as Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald &
Pirrotti, P.C., in 2011 and became an equity partner in January 2016.
7 My practice involves the representation of individuals in employment law
disputes. I regularly litigate in the state and federal courts in Connecticut.
8 I charge $400 per hour for my services — a rate which clients regularly
pay me.
9 In 2018, I was elected to serve a three-year term as a Delegate in the Connecticut
Bar Association House of Delegates. I am Immediate Past Chair of the Bar Association’s
650-
member Labor & Employment Law Section and also serve on the Executive Commit
tee ofthe
Federal Practice Section.
10. Ihave been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America and by SuperLawyers.
Martindale-Hubbell rates me as AV Preeminent based on peer reviews.
11. Tam a frequent speaker and writer about issues related to employment law in
Connecticut. By way of example, since 2015, I have presented an annual update of
Connecticut
labor and employment law to either the Connecticut Legal Conference or the CBA Labor
&
Employment Law Section’s Annual Advanced Employment Law Symposium.
12. My significant study of and experience with employment law and employment
litigation provides me with a special skill or knowledge that is not common to the average
lay
person or even the average member of the Connecticut bar. Accordingly, I am
qualified to serve
as an expert witness concerning employment litigation in Connecticut.
First Opinion: Failure to File Opposition and to Obtain Informed Consen
t
13. Ihave reviewed the circumstances of the Defendants’ Tepresentation of Plaintiff
Satawhite in a 2014 Superior Court lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport.
14. My understanding of the facts of that representation, which I assume to be true,
are as follows:
a The Defendants filed a lawsuit (hereinafter “the Lawsuit”) against
the City
of Bridgeport on Plaintiff Satawhite’s behalf in or about November
2014. The Lawsuit was
docketed as AAN-CV14-6077396-S. (The Lawsuit appears to have been filed in the Judicial
District of Ansonia/Milford, although the Complaint refers to the “J.D.
of New Haven.”)
b. The Lawsuit alleged breach of contract and constructive discharge.
(The
legal theory of the constructive discharge is not entirely clear, but it seems
to be common law
wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.)
c. The City filed a “motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss”
(hereinafter “the Motion”) in or about November 2015. (Dkt. No. 111.) On Februar
y 12, 2016,
the Defendants — purportedly on behalf of Plaintiff Satawhite — filed a self-sty
led “Reply to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” The Reply stated, in total: “The
plaintiff, Robert
Satawhite, by and through his counsel, has elected to waive his right to file a respons
ive
pleading, waives his right to oral argument on Defendant’s instant motion[
,] and thereby leaves
the Defendant to its burden of persuasion.” (Dkt. No. 112.) The same day
that the “Reply” was
filed, the Court granted the Motion and entered judgment for the City. (Dkt Nos.
111.2 & 113.)
d At no point did the Defendants inform Plaintiff Satawhite that they were
filing the aforementioned “Reply” or that they were waiving his right to oppose
the Motion.
Plaintiff Satawhite did not wish to waive his right to oppose the Motion, nor did
he give the
Defendants his consent to do so.
15, Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion to a reasonable degree of legal certaint
y
that the Defendants departed from the standard of proper professional
skill or care that applies to
lawyers representing employees in Connecticut.
16, It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of legal certainty that the filing of the
“Reply” without authorization from Plaintiff Satawhite violated several of
the Connecticut Rules
of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4.
is It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of legal certainty that there is no
reasonable explanation for failing or refusing to oppose a dispositive motion in an employm
ent
case without the informed consent of the client or, at a minimum, extensive efforts
to obtain the
informed consent of the client.
Second Opinion: Likelihood of Success; Settlement Valu
18. Initially, I was not asked to develop an opinion about the merits or value of the
Lawsuit or the likelihood of the Motion being granted if an opposition had been filed, and I
accordingly did not express any opinion on those issues. Subseque
Preview
D.N. CV 16 6021915 SUPERIOR COURT ROBERT SATA WHITE J. D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD V. AT MILFORD JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS AND BARBER JANUARY 22, 2019 MEMORANUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FACTS: On March 12, 2018, the Plaintiff disclosed Attorney Joshua Goodbaum as his expert witness in accordance with Practice Book Section 13-4. The disclosure included the contact information for Attorney Goodbaum, a Curriculum Vitae, his field of expertise — Labor & Employment Law and his expert opinion in an Affidavit by Attorney Goodbaum dated March 12, 2018 (Exhibit A). Attorney Goodbaum has been available for deposition since he was disclosed on March 12, 2018. On September 4, 2018, the undersigned mistakenly did not appear for a pretrial in this matter. Subsequent to the non-appearance, Judge Stevens issued a JDNO notice which stated the following: “ORDER: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This case is scheduled to start jury selection on September 18, 2018. At the final trial management/judicial settlement conference held in this case on September 4, 2018, the defendant appeared and the plaintiff did not. The defendant represented that the plaintiff has not disclosed an expert in this legal malpractice case. On the basis of the above, the plaintiff is ORDERED to appear before the court on Monday, September 24, 2018 and show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The trial scheduled for September 18, 2018 is marked off.” (Exhibit B) The notice does NOT state “all costs of this of this deposition, including the expert’s fee for the deposition, shall be borne and paid for by the plaintiff.” On September 21, 2018, the undersigned filed the attached “Showing of Cause” (Exhibit C) On September 24, 2018, the undersigned appeared in court and argued the “Showing of Cause” before Judge Stevens. On October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Modify Scheduling Order to Permit Filing of Motion for Summary Judgment”. On October 10, 2018 a new trial date of May 7, 2019 was scheduled by Judge Tyma (Exhibit D). In early November, 2017, Defendant attempted to notice a deposition of Attorney Goodbaum for November 7, 2018 (Exhibit E) When the undersigned received the notice he promptly sent the Defendant an email that noted that pursuant to Practice Book Section 13- 4(c)(2) the party taking the deposition was responsible for the payment of the expert fees for the deposition and would have to pay those up front: “(2) Unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority for good cause shown, or agreed upon by the parties, the fees and expenses of the expert witness for any such deposition, excluding preparation time, shall be paid by the party or parties taking the deposition.” Defendant did not respond to the undersigned’s email and the deposition did not take place. Defendant never re-noticed the deposition. On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff sent the Defendant the “Second Affidavit of Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq.” dated January 17, 2019 (Exhibit F) in anticipation of being permitted to file a new Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion for Leave to file a new Motion for Summary Judgment is pending and has been marked ready today. On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the expert was available for deposition the week of January 28, 2019. The Defendant did not respond. STANDARD: Practice Book section 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” ARGUMENT: Genuine issues of material fact exist as to the one count Complaint of legal malpractice and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. As Defendant states in his Memorandum of Law, in a legal malpractice action a Plaintiff must establish “(1) the existence of an attorney client relationship; (2) the attorney’s wrongful act or omission; (3) causation; and (4) damages. Grimm v. Fox, 303, 329-30, 33 A.3d 205 (2012). It is undisputed that there was an attorney client relationship and that the Plaintiff has alleged the wrongful act for failing to file an Objection to a Summary Judgment Motion and a Memorandum in Support in the case at issue (Robert Satawhite v. City of Bridgeport AAN CV 14 6077396 S (“Satawhite v. City of Bridgeport”) Genuine issues of material fact exist as to causation and damages. Attorney Joshua Goodbaum was disclosed on March 12, 2018 (Exhibit A). At that time, he provided an initial Affidavit stating that failing to file an opposition to Summary Judgment in Satawhite v. City of Bridgeport was malpractice (Exhibit A). Attorney Goodbaum has been available to be deposed since March 12, 2018. Recently, in anticipation of filing a Plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment, Attorney Goodbaum provided an affidavit dated January 17, 2019 providing opinion as to a result in Satawhite v. City of Bridgeport (Exhibit F). In addition, multiple exhibits and an argument in favor of legal malpractice have been provided to the Defendant supporting Plaintiff's claim of legal malpractice in the Plaintiff's March 13, 2018 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, Plaintiff intends to file a second Motion for Summary Judgment including Attorney Goodbaum’s second affidavit when permission for leave is granted by the Court. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment dated January 10, 2019 should be denied. THE PLAINTIFF: By:__/s/ Daniel H. Kryzanski, Esq. Law Offices of Daniel H. Kryzanski 30 Ferry Blvd., #2 Stratford, CT 06615 Phone: (203) 380-1384 Fax: (203) 380-1598 Juris #: 408785 CERTIFICATION: [hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered on the above date to: Jerald Barber,Esq. 85 Mumford Road New Haven, CT 06515 Williams and Barber 85 Mumford Road New Haven, CT 06515 /s/ Daniel H. Kryzanski D.N. CV 16 6021915 SUPERIOR COURT ROBERT SATAWHITE J. D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD Vv. AT MILFORD JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS AND BARBER MARCH 12, 2018 PRACTICE BOOK SECTION 13-4 EXP. WI! 'S DI Pursuant to Practice Book Section 13-4, the Plaintiff hereby makes the following expert witness disclosure: Joshua R. Goodbaum, Attorney, Garrison, Levin-Epstein, F itzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., New Haven, CT. Curriculum Vitae — Attached. Field of Expertise: Labor & Employment Law Expert Opinion: Failure to file a substantive response to a motion for summary judgment is legal malpractice (See attached affidavit). Failure to file a substantive response without the client’s permission was legal malpractice ( See attached affidavit). THE PLAINTIFF: By:__/s/ Daniel H. Kryzanski, Esq. Law Offices of Daniel H. Kryzanski 30 Ferry Blvd., #2 Stratford, CT 06615 Phone: (203) 380-1384 Fax: (203) 380-1598 Juris #: 408785 CERTIFICATION: Thereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was delivered on the above date to: Jerald Barber,Esq. 85 Mumford Road New Haven, CT 06515 Williams and Barber 85 Mumford Road New Haven, CT 06515 ds D: iel H. ski JOSHUA R. GOODBAUM Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald, & Pirrotti * 405 Orange Street, New Haven, CT 06511 jgoodbaum@garrisonlaw.com * 203.777.4425 (office) EDUCATION HARVARD Law SCHOOL, Cambridge, MA, J.D. magna cum laude, 2009 Activities: Harvard Law Review, Supervising Editor 2007 HLS Public Interest Auction, Co-Chair YALE UNIVERSITY, New Haven, CT, B.A. magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, with Distinction in History, 2004 EXPERIENCE GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN, FITZGERALD, & PIRROTTI, New Haven, CT 201 |-present Partner (2016-present); Associate (2011-16). Represent individuals in employment and civil rights cases. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, Washington, DC 2010-2011; Summer 2008 U.S, COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CiRcuIT, Denver, CO 2009-2010 Law Clerk, The Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch. REPRESENTATIVE PUBLICATIONS Danlages in Common-Law Employment Cases (with Jose} ph D. Garrison), in The Comprehens ive Guide to Economic Damages (N. Fannon & J. Dunitz eds., 4th ed. 2016) Conn. Court Says Goodbye to Garcetti: Recent Ruling Enhances Protections for Employee Whistleblowers, Connecticut Law Tribune (2015) The Supreme Court of Stabili ?: Employment Law in the U.S. Supreme Court, Connecticut Law Tribune (2015) Handling Suspected Employee Theft (with Nina T. Pirrotti), Connecticut Law Tribune (2015) Workplace Bullying: A Problem for Everyone (with Nina T. Pirrotti), Connecticut Law Tribune (2014) The Minimum Wage: An Ongoing Debate, ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law: FLASH (2014) Alternative Dispute Resolution: Court Reaffirms Commitment to Enforcing Agreements, Connectic ut Law Tribune (2014) Recent Case, Criminal Law — Right to a Fair Trial, 121 HARV. L. REV. 2238 (2008) REPRESENTATIVE SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS Transgender Issues in the Workplace, Connecticut Bar Association Annual Conference (2017) How to Bring and Defend an Employment Case, Connecticut Bar Association Young Lawyers Section (2017) Annual Labor & Employment Law Update, Connecticut Bar Association Labor & Employm ent Conference (2017) Advocating for LGBTO Elders, Connecticut Bar Association Elder Law Section (2016) Campus Sexual Assault Investigations, District of Connecticut Semi-Annual Bench-B ar Conference (2016) Annual Labor & Employment Law Update, Connecticut Bar Association Labor & Employment Conferenc e (2016) Employment Law Developments in Connecticut's State & Fede) ral Courts, Connecticut Bar Association Annual Conference (2015) US. and Connecticut Supreme Courts Update, Connecticut Bar Associ ation Labor & Employment Conference (2014) Introduction to Wage & Hour Law, Connecticut Women’s Educat ion and Legal Fund (CWEALF) (2014) Discovery of Comparator Evidence, National Employment Lawyers Association Annual Conference (2014) U.S. Supreme Court Update, Connecticut Bar Association Labor & Emplo yment Conference (2013) AWARDS AND SERVICE Chairman, Connecticut Bar Association, Labor and Emplo Rising Star, Connecticut Super Lawyers yment Law Section 2017-18 Secretary, Connecticut Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law 2015-17 Section 2016-17 Treasurer, Connecticut Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section New Leaders of the Law, Connecticut Law Tribune 2015-16 2015 DOCKET NO.: AAN-CV-16-6021915-S ROBERT SATAWHITE, SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff, J.D, OF ANSONIA/MILFORD Vv. AT MILFORD JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS AND BARBER, Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA R. GOODBAUM, ESQ. 1, Joshua R. Goodbaum, am over the age of eighteen and understand the obligations of an oath. I do hereby state the following: Background 1 1am a lawyer admitted to practice in the States of Connecticut and New York and a partner at the law firm of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., in New Haven, where I represent employees in employment litigation and negotiation. 2 I graduated from Yale University, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, in 2004. 3 L attended Harvard Law School from 2006 to 2009, graduating magna cum laude (which in 2009 indicated a grade point average in the top 10% of the class). I served as Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review. 4 After law school, I served as a judicial law clerk for Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch of the Supreme Court of the United States, when he was a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 5 Following the clerkship, I practiced as an associate attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Washington, DC. 6 I joined the law firm now known as Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., in 2011 and became an equity partner in January 2016. 7 My practice involves the representation of individuals in employment law disputes. | regularly litigate in the state and federal courts in Connecticut. 8 I charge $400 per hour for my services — a rate which clients regularly pay me. 9, I currently serve, by election, as Chair of the Labor & Employment Law Section of the Connecticut Bar Association, which has approximately 650 members. I also serve on the Executive Committees of the Labor & Employment Law Section and of the Federal Practice Section. 10. Iam a frequent speaker and writer about issues related to employment law in Connecticut. By way of example, since 2015, I have presented an annual update of Connecticut labor and employment law to either the Connecticut Legal Conference or the CBA Labor & Employment Law Section’s Annual Advanced Employment Law Symposium. a. My significant study of and experience with employment law and employment litigation provides me with a special skill or knowledge that is not common to the average lay person or even the average member of the Connecticut bar. Accordingly, I am qualified to serve as an expert witness concerning employment litigation in Connecticut. Qpinion 12. I have reviewed the circumstances of the Defendants’ representation of Plaintiff Satawhite in a 2014 Superior Court lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport. 13, My understanding of the facts of that representation, which I assume to be true, are as follows: 4. The Defendants filed a lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport on Plaintiff Satawhite’s behalf in or about November 2014. That lawsuit was docketed asAAN-C V14- 6077396-S. (The lawsuit appears to have been filed in the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milf ord, although the Complaint refers to the “J.D. of New Haven.”) b The lawsuit alleged breach of contract and constructive discharge. (The legal theory of the constructive discharge is not entirely clear, but it seems to be common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, based on the Plaintiff's refusal to comply with an “improper directive.”) c The City filed a “motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss” in or about November 2015. (Dkt. No. 111.) On February 12, 2016, the Defend ants — purportedly on behalf of Plaintiff Satawhite — filed a self-styled “Reply to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” The Reply stated, in total: “The plaintiff, Robert Satawhite, by and through his counsel, has elected to waive his right to file a responsive pleading, waives his right to oral argument on Defendant’s instant motion|,] and thereby leaves the Defendant to its burden of persuasion.” (Dkt. No. 112.) The same day that the “Reply” was filed, the Court granted the City’s motion and entered judgment for the City. (Dkt Nos. 111.2 & 113.) d At no point did the Defendants inform Plaintiff Satawhite that they were filing the aforementioned “Reply” or that they were waiving his right to oppose the City’s motion. Plaintiff Satawhite did not wish to waive his tight to oppose the City’s motion, nor did he give the Defendants his consent to do so. 14. In my opinion, based on the above-described facts, the Defendants departed from the standard of proper professional skill or care that applies to lawyer s representing employees in Connecticut. 15. In my opinion, the filing of the “Reply” without authorization from Plaintiff Satawhite violated several of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. 16. In my opinion, there is no reasonable explanation for failing or refusing to oppose a dispositive motion in an employment case without the informed consent of the client or, ata minimum, extensive efforts to obtain the informed consent of the client. 17, Thave not been asked to develop an opinion about the merits or value of Plaintiff Satawhite’s underlying lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport or the likelihood of the City’s motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss being granted if an opposition had been filed. | therefore express no opinion as to those questions. Jo streot Connecheut _ County of New Haven : Thereby certify that Joshua R. Goodbaum has read the foregoing Affidavit, understands the contents thereof, and affirms that it is true, accurate, and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. Subscribed and sworn to before me this / aie of March, 2018. kinda UM Ne athys Notary Public My Commission Expires:_/0] 3/ / 0 d/ LINDA M. DeMATTEIS JDNO NOTICE AAN-CV-16-6021915-S |SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BARBER, JERALD Et Al Notice Issued: 09/04/2018 Court Address: CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT ANSONIA-MILFORD JD 14 WEST RIVER STREET PO BOX 210 MILFORD, CT 06460 Website: www.jud.ct.gov Notice Content: Notice Issued: 09/04/2018 Docket Number: AAN-CV-16-6021915-S Case Caption: SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BARBER, JERALD Et Al Notice Sequence #: 1 JDNO NOTICE The following order is entered in the above matter: ORDER: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE This case is scheduled to start jury selection on September 18, 2018. At the final trial management/judicial settlement conference held in this case on September 4, 2018, the defendant appeared and the plaintiff did not. The defendant represented that the plaintiff has not disclosed an expert in this legal malpractice case. On the basis of the above, the plaintiff is ORDERED to appear before the court on Monday, September 24, 2018 and show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The trial scheduled for September 18, 2018 is marked off. BY THE COURT, STEVENS, J. 9/4/2018 SLB D.N. CV 16 6021915 SUPERIOR COURT ROBERT SATAWHITE J. D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD Vv. AT MILFORD JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS AND BARBER SEPTEMBER 21, 2018 SHOWING OF CAUSE The undersigned hereby shows cause as to why the above entitled case should be schedule for trial after the decision on the pending Summary Judgment Motion in this matter. In support of this showing, the undersigned states: 1 The undersigned filed a motion for summary judgment on March 12, 2018. 2 Contemporaneously with that filing he served the attached expert disclosure on the Defendants. The undersigned was not aware that any pretrial or trial had been scheduled in this matter as the Motion for Summary Judgment is currently pending. Since the court date of September 24" was scheduled in this matter, the undersigned has sent the March 12, 2018 expert disclosure to the Defendants twice with no acknowledgement. THE PLAINTIFF: By:__/s/ Daniel H. Kryzanski, Esq. Law Offices of Daniel H. Kryzanski 30 Ferry Blvd., #2 Stratford, CT 06615 Phone: (203) 380-1384 Fax: (203) 380-1598 Juris #: 408785 ORDER: The foregoing motion having been heard is hereby ordered GRANTED/DENIED. By: JDNO NOTICE AAN-CV-16-6021915-S | SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BARBE R, JERALD Et Al Notice Issued: 10/10/2018 Court Address: CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT ANSONIA-MILFORD JD 14 WEST RIVER STREET PO BOX 210 MILFORD, CT 06460 Website: www.jud.ct.gov Mint — zo01 4 qm Notice Content: Notice Issued: 10/10/2018 Aphit Docket Number: AAN-CV-16-6021915-S po Case Caption: SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BARBER, JERALD Et Al Notice Sequence #: 1 JDNO NOTICE 05/07/2019 AT 9:30AM NOTICE OF JURY TRIAL THE ABOVE CASE APPEARING ON THE JURY LIST IS SCHEDULED FOR JURY SELECTION ON THE ABOVE CAPTIONED DATE AND TIME. CONTINUANCE REQUE STS MUST BE IN WRITING AND STATE WHETHER ANY COUNSEL HAS AN OBJECTION. FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DEFAULT, DISMISSAL OR NONSUIT. PLEASE CONSULT THE JUDICIA L WEBSITE AT WWW.JUD.CT.GOV FOR ALL CIVIL JURY TRIAL MANAGEMENT ORDERS. Contact casefiow to confirm hearing location as matters may be held in either Derby or Milford. THEODORE TYMA, PRESIDING JUDGE Please direct inquiries to: Charlotte Russell, Caseflow Coordinator (203) 283-8205 14 W. River Street Milford, CT. 06460 Charlotte.Russell@jud.ct.gov D.N. CV 16 6021915 SUPERIOR COURT ROBERT SATAWHITE J. D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD V. AT MILFORD JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS AND BARBER October 29, 2018 TT DI 0 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2018, », at 10:00 A.M., the undersigned attorney will take deposition(s)s of the following named persons for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for use of such other Purpo ses as are permitted under applicable and governing rules. The depositions will take place at the law offices of DANIEL HENRY KRYZANSKI 30 FERRY BLVD. #2 STRATFORD, CT 06615. Estimated time to complete depositions is two (2) hours. 1 - Rol whi 12:00- Daniel Henry Kryzanski 2:00- Atto Joshu rn a R.ey Goldbaum ants, Jes Barber,Esq. jams and Barber 5 Mumford Road New Haven, Connecticut 06515 (203)787-2236 juris No. 408909 jeraldbarberlaw@comcast.net CERTIFICATION: Thereby certify that a co py of the foregoing was delivered via mail on the above date to: email and USPS regular Daniel H. Kryzanski, Esq. Law Offices of Daniel H. Kryzanski 30 Ferry Blvd., #2 Stratford, CT 06615 a Je S. Barbe al, se Lev Offices of A it orney Da tel % 4, 30 Ferry Boulev GT, Kry. zanski i ard, #2 Stratford, CT 0661 5 1 Phone: (203) 380-) 384 ell: (203) 21 Fax: (203) 380-8-15 9200 | box (203) 332-5618 2 9 831 @aol.com | ebruary 7, 201] ‘xecutive Director ffice of Human Reso urces 'S Lyon Terrace, Room 310 ridgeport, CT 0660 4 Robert Satawhite ear Sir/Madam, lease be advised tha t T represent Mr. Sa ity of Bridgeport. As tawhi te in regard to you may know, Mr. his em, ployment ective Tuesday, May Was suspended wi with 30, 2006, but he has ne th o: Tminated. ver Teceived any ut pay formal notice that . Satawhite would ik| e to know if he 2 which he was t ‘€rminat has been te i ited and the status of and if so, wh, an d the his benefits and pe nsion. el H. Kryzanski ed Robert Satawhite ane Veta ~ AAN-LV14-6017396 -S 10/29/18, 10:07 AM ud oh ntestattal| Lee fe i Ti Sete) au at rea Of tty a OFTTS Bete) aie a = © AAN-CV14- 6017396-S SATAWHITE, ROBERT v. BRIDGEPOR T BOARD OF EDUCATION Prefix/Suffix: [none] Case Type: C90 File Date: 11/26/2014 Return Date: 12/02/2014 e Case Detail = : Information Updated as of: 10/29/2018 Case Information Case Type: C90- Contracts - All other Court Location: MILFORD JD List Type: COURT (CT) Trial List Claim: 09/15/2015 Last Action Date: peen an (The “last action date" is the date the information was entered inthe Disposition information Disposition Date: 02/16/2016 Disposition: SUMMARY JUDGMENT-DEF ENDANT Judge or Magistrate: HON FRANK IANNO TTI Party & Appearance Information Party No aoe Category ad P-01 ROBERT SATAWHITE Attorney: & DANIEL HENRY KRYZAN‘ SKI (408785) Plaintiff oy 30 FERRY BLVD. #2 File Date: 05/02/2016 STRATFORD, CT 06615 D-01 BRIDGEPORT BOARD OF EDUCATION Attorney: & BRIDGEPORT CITY ATTO! RNEY Defendant (006192) File Date: 12/02/2014 OFFICE OF CITY ATTORN: 999 BROAD STREET BRIDGEPORT, CT 066044328 Viewing Documents on Civil, Housing and Small Claims Cases: If there is an €* in front of the do cket number at the top of this page, then the file is electr (paperless). onic . Documents, Court orders and judicial notice s in electronic (paperless) civil, housing and claims cases with a return dat te on or after Janu small a ry 1, 2014 are available publicly over the internet." For more oe ‘on what you can view in all cases, view the For civil cases filed prior to 2014, court orders and judicial notices that are electronic available publicly over the internet. Orders can are be viewed by selecting the link to the order the list below. Notices can be viewed by clickins from 19 the Notices tab above and Selecting the link." Documents, court orders and judicial notices in an electroni ic (paperless) file can be viewed any judicial district courthouse during normal at business hout rs." Plead ings or other documents that a re not electronic (paperless) ) can be viewed only durin normal business hours at the Clerk’. 's Office in the g Judicial Disttrict where the case is located.* ttp:/ /elvilinquiry jud.ct.gov/CaseDetall/PublicCaseDetall. aspx?D ocketNo=AANCV14601 7396S Page 1 of3 DOCKET NO.: AAN-CY-16-6021915-S ROBERT SATAWHITE, SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiff, J.D. OF ANSONIA/MILFORD Vv. AT MILFORD JERALD BARBER and WILLIAMS AND BARBER, Defendants. SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA R. GOODBAUM, ESQ. I, Joshua R. Goodbaum, am over the age of eighteen and understand the obligations of an oath. I do hereby state the following: Background 1 Iam a lawyer admitted to practice in the States of Connecticut and New York and a partner at the law firm of Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., in New Haven, where I represent employees in employment litigation and negotiation. 2 I graduated from Yale University, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, in 2004. 3 Tattended Harvard Law School from 2006 to 2009, graduating magna cum laude (which in 2009 indicated a grade point average in the top 10% of the class). During law school, I served as Supervising Editor of the Harvard Law Review. 4. After law school, I served as a judicial law clerk for Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch of the Supreme Court of the United States, when he was a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 5 Following the clerkship, I practiced as an associate attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP in Washington, DC. 6 I joined the law firm now known as Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C., in 2011 and became an equity partner in January 2016. 7 My practice involves the representation of individuals in employment law disputes. I regularly litigate in the state and federal courts in Connecticut. 8 I charge $400 per hour for my services — a rate which clients regularly pay me. 9 In 2018, I was elected to serve a three-year term as a Delegate in the Connecticut Bar Association House of Delegates. I am Immediate Past Chair of the Bar Association’s 650- member Labor & Employment Law Section and also serve on the Executive Commit tee ofthe Federal Practice Section. 10. Ihave been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America and by SuperLawyers. Martindale-Hubbell rates me as AV Preeminent based on peer reviews. 11. Tam a frequent speaker and writer about issues related to employment law in Connecticut. By way of example, since 2015, I have presented an annual update of Connecticut labor and employment law to either the Connecticut Legal Conference or the CBA Labor & Employment Law Section’s Annual Advanced Employment Law Symposium. 12. My significant study of and experience with employment law and employment litigation provides me with a special skill or knowledge that is not common to the average lay person or even the average member of the Connecticut bar. Accordingly, I am qualified to serve as an expert witness concerning employment litigation in Connecticut. First Opinion: Failure to File Opposition and to Obtain Informed Consen t 13. Ihave reviewed the circumstances of the Defendants’ Tepresentation of Plaintiff Satawhite in a 2014 Superior Court lawsuit against the City of Bridgeport. 14. My understanding of the facts of that representation, which I assume to be true, are as follows: a The Defendants filed a lawsuit (hereinafter “the Lawsuit”) against the City of Bridgeport on Plaintiff Satawhite’s behalf in or about November 2014. The Lawsuit was docketed as AAN-CV14-6077396-S. (The Lawsuit appears to have been filed in the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford, although the Complaint refers to the “J.D. of New Haven.”) b. The Lawsuit alleged breach of contract and constructive discharge. (The legal theory of the constructive discharge is not entirely clear, but it seems to be common law wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.) c. The City filed a “motion for summary judgment/motion to dismiss” (hereinafter “the Motion”) in or about November 2015. (Dkt. No. 111.) On Februar y 12, 2016, the Defendants — purportedly on behalf of Plaintiff Satawhite — filed a self-sty led “Reply to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” The Reply stated, in total: “The plaintiff, Robert Satawhite, by and through his counsel, has elected to waive his right to file a respons ive pleading, waives his right to oral argument on Defendant’s instant motion[ ,] and thereby leaves the Defendant to its burden of persuasion.” (Dkt. No. 112.) The same day that the “Reply” was filed, the Court granted the Motion and entered judgment for the City. (Dkt Nos. 111.2 & 113.) d At no point did the Defendants inform Plaintiff Satawhite that they were filing the aforementioned “Reply” or that they were waiving his right to oppose the Motion. Plaintiff Satawhite did not wish to waive his right to oppose the Motion, nor did he give the Defendants his consent to do so. 15, Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion to a reasonable degree of legal certaint y that the Defendants departed from the standard of proper professional skill or care that applies to lawyers representing employees in Connecticut. 16, It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of legal certainty that the filing of the “Reply” without authorization from Plaintiff Satawhite violated several of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4. is It is my opinion to a reasonable degree of legal certainty that there is no reasonable explanation for failing or refusing to oppose a dispositive motion in an employm ent case without the informed consent of the client or, at a minimum, extensive efforts to obtain the informed consent of the client. Second Opinion: Likelihood of Success; Settlement Valu 18. Initially, I was not asked to develop an opinion about the merits or value of the Lawsuit or the likelihood of the Motion being granted if an opposition had been filed, and I accordingly did not express any opinion on those issues. Subseque