Astudillo v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intl Union Ind Pension Fund

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit Connecticut District Court Astudillo v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intl Union Ind Pension Fund

Astudillo v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intl Union Ind Pension Fund

Plaintiff:	Mery Ann Astudillo
Defendant:	United Food & Commercial Workers Intl Union Ind Pension Fund
Case Number:	3:2018cv00394
Filed:	March 5, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	Middlesex
Presiding Judge:	Michael P. Shea
Nature of Suit:	Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Cause of Action:	No cause code entered
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 23, 2019	Filing 53 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached, the defendant's 44 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Although the Local Rules of this Court allow only 7 days to file a motion for reconsideration, the Court will afford the plain tiff 21 days to file such a motion in this case based on the following circumstances. The plaintiff's complaint indicates that her address is 21 Flanders Road, East Hampton, Connecticut, ECF No. 1, and all Court orders and other mailings have been sent to that address, including this Court's order directing the plaintiff to file a response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and directing her to review the notice to pro se litigants filed with the defendant' s motion. ECF No. 52. Nonetheless, the defendant's motion papers indicate on the certification pages that those papers were sent to the plaintiff at 24 Flanders Road, East Hampton, Connecticut. See, e.g., ECF No. 44 at 3. This rais es a possibility that she did not receive those papers, although the Court notes that that possibility appears to be remote given the proximity of the address used by the defendant to the plaintiff's given address and given the Court's orde r at ECF No. 52 (which was sent to plaintiff's given address) expressly referring to those papers. The plaintiff has shown in this case that she has previously responded to court orders sent to her given address. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 12-16. In a n abundance of caution, however, the Court will extend the deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration. If any such motion is filed and any such motion contends that the plaintiff did not receive the defendant's motion papers, it mu st be accompanied by a declaration or affidavit, made under oath, (1) attesting that the plaintiff did not receive the defendant's motion for summary judgment, (2) attesting that she did not otherwise review or obtain a copy of the defendant 9;s motion papers from the online docket, (3) indicating whether or not there is a dwelling or other building located at 24 Flanders Road, and (4) explaining why the plaintiff did not raise the problem of non-receipt of any papers sooner, especially after the Court sent an order referring to those papers, ECF No. 52, to her at her given address. Failure to include a declaration or affidavit complying with this order will lead the Court to conclude that the plaintiff did receive the defendant� 39;s motion papers. In addition, any such motion for reconsideration must otherwise comply with Local Rule 7(c), including by pointing to controlling decisions or facts the Court overlooked in this ruling. The Court notes that even if the plaintiff did receive the defendant's motion papers, she still may, if she wishes, file a motion for reconsideration, provided any such motion complies with Local Rule 7(c).Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/23/2019. (Ram, Megha)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 23, 2019

Filing 53 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached, the defendant's 44 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Although the Local Rules of this Court allow only 7 days to file a motion for reconsideration, the Court will afford the plain tiff 21 days to file such a motion in this case based on the following circumstances. The plaintiff's complaint indicates that her address is 21 Flanders Road, East Hampton, Connecticut, ECF No. 1, and all Court orders and other mailings have been sent to that address, including this Court's order directing the plaintiff to file a response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and directing her to review the notice to pro se litigants filed with the defendant' s motion. ECF No. 52. Nonetheless, the defendant's motion papers indicate on the certification pages that those papers were sent to the plaintiff at 24 Flanders Road, East Hampton, Connecticut. See, e.g., ECF No. 44 at 3. This rais es a possibility that she did not receive those papers, although the Court notes that that possibility appears to be remote given the proximity of the address used by the defendant to the plaintiff's given address and given the Court's orde r at ECF No. 52 (which was sent to plaintiff's given address) expressly referring to those papers. The plaintiff has shown in this case that she has previously responded to court orders sent to her given address. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 12-16. In a n abundance of caution, however, the Court will extend the deadline for filing a motion for reconsideration. If any such motion is filed and any such motion contends that the plaintiff did not receive the defendant's motion papers, it mu st be accompanied by a declaration or affidavit, made under oath, (1) attesting that the plaintiff did not receive the defendant's motion for summary judgment, (2) attesting that she did not otherwise review or obtain a copy of the defendant 9;s motion papers from the online docket, (3) indicating whether or not there is a dwelling or other building located at 24 Flanders Road, and (4) explaining why the plaintiff did not raise the problem of non-receipt of any papers sooner, especially after the Court sent an order referring to those papers, ECF No. 52, to her at her given address. Failure to include a declaration or affidavit complying with this order will lead the Court to conclude that the plaintiff did receive the defendant� 39;s motion papers. In addition, any such motion for reconsideration must otherwise comply with Local Rule 7(c), including by pointing to controlling decisions or facts the Court overlooked in this ruling. The Court notes that even if the plaintiff did receive the defendant's motion papers, she still may, if she wishes, file a motion for reconsideration, provided any such motion complies with Local Rule 7(c).Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/23/2019. (Ram, Megha)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Astudillo v. United Food & Commercial Workers Intl Union Ind Pension Fund
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mery Ann Astudillo
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: United Food & Commercial Workers Intl Union Ind Pension Fund
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?