Winter et al v. State of Connecticut et al
| George Winter, Howard Jacobs, Amy Jones, James Smollen, Doug Pratt, Bill Cortez, Fred Torres, John Mrozowski, Bonnie Morin, Chris St. Jacques, Tony Santos, Steve Licitra and Abe Rosario |
| State of Connecticut, Dept of Motor Vehicles, James Rio, Philippia Fletcher-DeNovellis, Elizabeth Kranz, Dan Callahan, Natalie Shipman and Victor Diaz |
| 3:2014cv01139 |
| August 7, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Vanessa L. Bryant |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
74
ORDER denying 72 Motion for Reconsideration in full as procedurally improper. Reconsideration is proper only in the case of an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Natl Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 12451255 (2d Cir. 1992). While Defendants articulate the standard for reconsideration in their motion, their arguments fall short of that high bar. Defendants es tablish no clear error in the Courts evaluation of the facts and law presented by the parties in their briefing for and against Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment. Nor do Defendants offer newly available evidence relevant to the Courts O rder. Defendants also fail to establish that the Courts ruling, while correct at the time, has been rendered in error by intervening law. A Motion for Reconsideration is not a vehicle for relitigating previously decided issues, or for raising new a rguments that could have been raised earlier. Defendants Motion is accordingly denied. The Court also directs the parties' attention to the attached Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting and Denying, in Part, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Corrected Memorandum of Decision remedies a clerical error in the text of the Court's conclusion, which incorrectly stated Plaintiffs' Title VII claims were to continue against individuals in their official capacities. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10/19/2016. (Hudson, C)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 62 Motion to Withdraw the Second Amended Complaint against certain defendants; and denying 63 Motion for Summary Judgment, in accordance with the attac hed Memorandum of Decision. Trial will go forward on Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims against the individual defendants and on their Title VII claims against the Defendant state entities and the individual defendants against whom Plaintiffs continued to pursue claims in their official capacities. The remaining claims are dismissed. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 09/27/2016. (Hudson, C)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
