Beaudry v. Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.
| Brian R. Beaudry |
| Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. |
| 3:2022cv01357 |
| October 26, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 8, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing fee received from Brian R. Beaudry: $ 505.00, receipt number tbd (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 41
JUDGMENT entered in favor of Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. against Brian R. Beaudry.For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms/appeals_forms Signed by Clerk on 8/28/2023.(Gould, K.)
|
|
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Gould, K.)
|
|
Filing 40
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE RE: INDEX AND RECORD ON APPEAL re: #39 Notice of Appeal. The attached docket sheet is hereby certified as the entire Index/Record on Appeal in this matter and electronically sent to the Court of Appeals, with the exception of any manually filed documents as noted below. Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk. Documents manually filed not included in this transmission: none. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 39
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #38 Order on Motion for Sanctions, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Dismiss, Order on Motion for Order, by Brian R. Beaudry. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 38
ORDER granting #17 Motion to Dismiss; denying #27 Motion for Sanctions; denying #28 Motion for Sanctions; denying #30 Motion to Disregard; denying #35 Motion for Leave to File; finding as moot #26 Motion for Order. The Clerk is directed to terminate Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. #31 , insofar as it has been construed and considered as Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion for sanctions. See attached Memorandum of Decision.The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgement for Defendant and close this case. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 8/22/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 37
REPLY to Objection to #30 MOTION to Disregard #29 Objection filed by Brian R. Beaudry. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 36
REPLY to Objection to #31 MOTION Dismiss re #28 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Brian R. Beaudry. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 35
MOTION for Leave to File by Brian R. Beaudry. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 34
ORDER. The parties shall not submit any further briefing on the pending Motion to Dismiss or Motions for Sanctions without permission of the Court. All pending motions shall be taken up by the Court in a single decision. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 7/28/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 33
OBJECTION re #31 MOTION Dismiss re #28 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.. (Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 32
OBJECTION re #29 Objection, #30 MOTION Disregard Defendant's Objection re #29 Objection, #27 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.. (Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 31
MOTION to Dismiss #28 MOTION for Sanctions by Brian R. Beaudry. Responses due by 7/27/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 30
MOTION to Disregard #29 Objection by Brian R. Beaudry. Responses due by 7/27/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 29
OBJECTION re #27 MOTION for Sanctions filed by Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.. (Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 28
MOTION for Sanctions by Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc..Responses due by 7/21/2023 (Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 27
MOTION for Sanctions by Brian R. Beaudry. Responses due by 7/3/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 26
MOTION for Ruling on #17 MOTION to Dismiss by Brian R. Beaudry. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 25
ORDER Staying Case. The Court sua sponte stays the Rule 26(f) requirements and discovery in this case pending the adjudication of Defendant's #17 Motion to Dismiss. "[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." United Rentals, Inc. v. Chamberlain, No. 3:12-CV-1466 CSH, 2013 WL 6230094, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 2, 2013) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). When considering whether to issue a stay pending resolution of a dispositive motion, the Court considers: (1) the strength of the dispositive motion; (2) the breadth of the discovery sought; and (3) the prejudice a stay would have on the non-moving party. See Morien v. Munich Reinsurance Am., Inc., 270 F.R.D. 65, 67 (D. Conn. 2010). Having considered these factors, the Court determines that each weighs in favor of a stay.Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 4/10/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 24
ORDER Denying #20 Motion for Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff seeks both a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering Defendant to cease withholding federal taxes from his compensation on the ground that collection of such taxes is not authorized by law. Preliminary injunctive relief "is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 409 F.3d 506, 510 (2d Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted); see also Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To prevail, Plaintiff must demonstrate "that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 876 (2015) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction under this rigorous standard. First, Plaintiff has not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm. Plaintiff alleges that he will likely suffer irreparable injury if Defendant continues to withhold federal taxes from his compensation. However "[i]rreparable injury is one that cannot be redressed through a monetary award. Where money damages are adequate compensation a preliminary injunction should not issue." Broecker v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 585 F. Supp. 3d 299, 320 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) (quoting JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray-Wrap, Inc., 917 F.2d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1990)). Moreover, "the temporary loss of income does not usually constitute irreparable injury." Id. (quoting Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 (1974)) (cleaned up). Here, should Plaintiff ultimately prevail in this case, monetary relief will adequately and entirely compensate him for his alleged injuries. Additionally, Plaintiff has not established that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. To the contrary, although the Court has not yet adjudicated Defendant's pending #17 Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that it raises persuasive and likely meritorious arguments. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 4/10/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 23
REPLY to Objection to #20 MOTION for Permanent Injunction, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brian R. Beaudry. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 22
OBJECTION re #20 MOTION for Permanent Injunction MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.. (Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 21
REPLY to Response to #17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.. (Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 20
MOTION for Permanent Injunction, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Brian R. Beaudry. Responses due by 3/29/2023. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 19
RESPONSE to #17 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Brian R. Beaudry. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER denying #15 Motion. The Court construes Plaintiff's #15 Motion, entitled "Motion to Deny Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Default Judgment," as a motion for reconsideration of the Court's 10 Order denying Plaintiff's motion for default entry and 14 Order granting Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to the Complaint. As construed, Plaintiff's motion is denied. It is common practice for this Court to grant litigants appropriate extensions of time to file responsive pleadings upon a showing of good cause. Additionally, "[i]t is well established that default judgments are disfavored" by the federal courts, and "[a] clear preference exists for cases to be adjudicated on the merits." U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A., 220 F.R.D. 404, 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (quoting Pecarsky v. Galaxiworld.com Ltd., 249 F.3d 167, 174 (2d Cir.2001)). As the Court previously observed, Plaintiff failed to establish that he had properly served Defendant. See Order, ECF No. 10. Plaintiff was therefore not entitled to an entry of default. See Nature's First Inc. v. Nature's First L., Inc., 436 F. Supp. 2d 368, 372 (D. Conn. 2006) ("[A] default judgment obtained by way of defective service is void for lack of personal jurisdiction and must be set aside as a matter of law."). The mere fact that the Defendant appeared in the action weeks after the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for entry of a default is not, as urged by Plaintiff, reason to revisit the Court's decision. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 2/8/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 17
MOTION to Dismiss by Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc..Responses due by 2/28/2023 (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Affidavit Declaration of Attorney Jachimowski, #3 Exhibit A in support of Declaration of Attorney Jachimowski)(Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 16
OBJECTION re #15 MOTION Deny Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time MOTION for Default Judgment as to Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. filed by Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.. (Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 15
MOTION to Deny Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time, MOTION for Default Judgment as to Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. by Brian R. Beaudry. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER granting #13 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff's #8 Complaint on or before February 17, 2023.Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 1/19/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 13
MOTION for Extension of Time until February 17, 2023to file responsive pleading to plaintiff's complaint #8 Complaint by Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.. (Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 12
NOTICE of Appearance by Kenneth B. Walton on behalf of Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. in addition to Appearance by Attorney Jachimowski (Walton, Kenneth)
|
|
Filing 11
NOTICE of Appearance by Christy E. Jachimowski on behalf of Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. (Jachimowski, Christy)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER denying #9 Motion for Default Entry. Defendant Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. was purportedly served by certified mail sent to an address in Oxford, CT by a Texas resident. However, service by certified mail to an address that is neither the Defendant's principal place of business nor the address of the Defendant's registered agent for service of process in the State of Connecticut is inadequate. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 33-929(b), (g). Indeed, the purported proof of service provides little reason to believe that the Defendant foreign corporation has received any notice of this lawsuit. Plaintiff must serve the Defendant through its registered agent or at its principal place of business. The Motion for Default Entry is denied. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/27/2022. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 9
MOTION for Default Entry 55 (a) as to Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc by Brian R. Beaudry. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)(Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 8
COMPLAINT against Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc., filed by Brian R. Beaudry. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER. It has come to the Court's attention that Mr. Beaudry did not sign the complaint. See Compl., ECF No. 1. The Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure require that all pleadings be signed. See Rule 11(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorneys name or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented."); Rule 10, D. Conn. L. Civ. R. ("All pleadings be prepared in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...." and include the signature of the pro se party or attorney who prepared the complaint or other pleading, and the date on which it was signed). Accordingly, the complaint, [ECF No. 1], is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 10. Mr. Beaudry may refile the complaint, including his signature and the date on which he signed the complaint, within twenty (20) days of the date of this order. If a signed complaint is not filed on or before November 17, 2022, the clerk shall close this case. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/28/2022.(Gould, K.)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. *Brian R. Beaudry* *36 Kelsey Drive* *Fremont, NH 03044*. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 5
NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #3 Protective Order, #1 Complaint filed by Brian R. Beaudry, #4 Electronic Filing Order. Signed by Clerk on 10/28/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/26/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/26/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/25/2022 Discovery due by 4/27/2023 Dispositive Motions due by 6/1/2023 Signed by Clerk on 10/26/2022. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing fee received from Brian R. Beaudry: $402.00, receipt number NH25863. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc., filed by Brian R. Beaudry. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Freberg, B)
|
|
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc.. (Freberg, B)
|
|
Judge Kari A. Dooley and Judge Robert A. Richardson added. (Freberg, B)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Beaudry v. Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Brian R. Beaudry | |
| 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: Clay Lacy Aviation, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Christy E. Jachimowski |
| Represented By: | Kenneth B. Walton |
| 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.
