Mansfield v. SHP Corp
| Gail Mansfield |
| Sttp Corp, SHP Corp and Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership |
| 3:2022cv01510 |
| November 23, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 74
ORDER. In light of the parties' joint stipulation, ECF No. 73, the case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/1/2023.(Piccolo, Marissa)
|
| Filing 73 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Case Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice by Gail Mansfield. (Brown, Dennis) |
|
Filing 72
ORDER. Because counsel was appointed in this case under Local Civil Rule 83.10, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute between such counsel and his or her client arising from the representation in this case, including without limitation, a grievance or malpractice claim. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/10/2023.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 71
Local Rule 41(b) ORDER: The parties have reported that this action has been settled in full. Rather than continue to keep the case open on the docket, the Clerk is directed to administratively close the file immediately, without prejudice to reopening by any party on or before November 9, 2023. If the parties wish to file a stipulation of dismissal, they may do so on or before November 9, 2023. The dates set forth in this order may be extended for good cause, upon a motion filed in accordance with Local Rule 7(b). Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/10/2023.(Bozek, M.)
|
| 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 (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 70 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas O. Farrish: Settlement Conference held on 10/5/2023. The parties reached a confidential settlement. They will work together to document their deal in a formal settlement agreement, but have been informed that Judge Nagala may elect to close the case administratively on the docket in the meantime. Total Time: 4 hours and 40 minutes (Wood, R.) |
|
Filing 69
AMENDED ORDER - The settlement conference has been rescheduled to October 5, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Farrish, re #66 Order. The zoom information will be emailed to counsel. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 9/26/23.(Wood, R.)
|
| Filing 68 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed by Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp. (Gramlich, Michelle) |
| Filing 67 Memorandum in Opposition re #63 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Gail Mansfield. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 66
ORDER: A settlement conference is scheduled for September 28, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. with Judge Farrish. Please see attached order for important instructions. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 8/30/23.(Wood, R.)
|
| Filing 65 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas O. Farrish: Telephonic Pre-Settlement Conference held on 8/29/2023. Time 15 minutes (Wood, R.) |
|
Filing 64
Telephonic pre-settlement conference set for August 29, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Thomas O. Farrish. Telephone connection information will be e-mailed to all appearing counsel by Judge Farrish's courtroom deputy at their e-mail address of record.A date for the settlement conference will be set during the telephone call. Because the parties will likely be ordered to attend the conference, either in-person or via videoconference, counsel are instructed to obtain their client's schedules over the next ninety days and have them available during the pre-conference. Counsel should also have their own calendars available to aid in scheduling. During the telephone call, counsel should be prepared to discuss what, if any, information needs to be exchanged and anything else that needs to be accomplished prior to the settlement conference to maximize its chances of success.If either counsel has a firm, unavoidable conflict at the appointed date and time, e.g., a previously-scheduled appearance in another court, s/he should not file a motion for continuance on the docket but rather should call Chambers at 860-240-3605 as soon as possible with opposing counsel on the line to work out an alternate day and time for the pre-conference with Judge Farrish's law clerk. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 8/21/23.(Wood, R.)
|
| Filing 63 MOTION to Dismiss by Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp.Responses due by 9/1/2023 (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2)(Gramlich, Michelle) |
| Filing 62 NOTICE by Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Gramlich, Michelle) |
| Filing 61 NOTICE of Appearance by Dennis O. Brown on behalf of Gail Mansfield (Brown, Dennis) |
|
Filing 60
ORDER denying #59 Motion for Extension of Time. Defense counsel appeared in this matter nearly two months ago, and the Court has already once extended Defendant's deadline to respond to the complaint by an additional month. Defendant's motion does not provide specific reasons why the August 14, 2023, deadline cannot be met. Therefore, the motion is denied, and Defendant's deadline to respond to the second amended complaint remains August 14, 2023. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 8/9/2023. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
| Filing 59 Second MOTION for Extension of Time until August 28, 2023 to Plead by Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp. (Gramlich, Michelle) |
|
Filing 58
ORDER denying #57 Motion for Access to Sealed Documents. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking access for both herself and Defendant to various sealed documents on the docket. The Court sealed these records, which were submitted to the Court by Plaintiff, because they included Plaintiff's medical records and they failed to comply with the redaction policies set forth in the District of Connecticut's Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures. Because Plaintiff submitted these documents to the Court, she should already have access to them. See Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/filing-without-attorney/faq ("All documents that are filed with the Clerk's Office become part of the court record and cannot be returned. If you attach any exhibits to your pleadings or other motions or memoranda, you should file a copy of the exhibit and keep the original for your records."). Should Defendant require access to the sealed filings, it may file a motion requesting such relief, as set forth in ECF No. 48. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 8/1/2023. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
| Filing 57 Motion For Access To Sealed Documents, by Gail Mansfield. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 56 NOTICE to Pro Bono Counsel re Incurring Expenses. Signed by Clerk on 7/26/2023.(Freberg, B) |
|
Filing 55
Order Appointing Pro Bono Counsel Dennis O. Brown for Gail Mansfield, for purposes of settlement only, pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R 83.10. Counsel is directed to contact their client and file an appearance in accordance with Local Rule 5(b) within 14 days. Counsel is further directed to review the Notice Regarding Local Rule 83.10(k): Incurring Pro Bono Expenses and Local Rule 83.10(k) (copies available on the Court's website at: http://ctd.uscourts.gov/pro-bono-information-0). Names of court reporters willing to handle pro bono cases at Judicial Conference rates are also available on the website. Please understand that if you do not submit your request for reimbursement of expenses before such expenses are incurred, you risk that the expenses will not be approved and you will not be reimbursed. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 7/26/2023.(Freberg, B)
|
| Set Deadline: Status Report due by 12/14/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 54
SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 3/14/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 4/15/2024. Status Report due by 12/14/2023. Status Report due by 3/21/2024.All further deadlines are set forth in the attached scheduling order. Note that some of the dates in the scheduling order differ from those proposed by the parties' Rule 26(f) Report.Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 07/14/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 53
ORDER re: 51 Telephonic Pre-Settlement Conference. In light of the order appointing pro bono counsel, the settlement pre-conference is CANCELED. It will be rescheduled after pro bono counsel is appointed and files his or her appearance. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 7/14/23.(Wood, R.)
|
|
Filing 52
ORDER sua sponte appointing pro bono counsel to represent Plaintiff for purposes of settlement only. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.10(c), pro bono counsel may be appointed when the judge determines that the appointment will serve the interests of justice. Here, appointment of counsel for Plaintiff for purposes of the parties' anticipated settlement conference is in the interests of justice. Given that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, it is apparent she cannot afford an attorney. To the extent Plaintiff's claims have merit, they are better presented through an attorney. The Clerk is therefore directed to appoint counsel for the limited purpose of representing Plaintiff for purposes of the parties' upcoming settlement conference. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 07/13/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 51
Telephonic pre-settlement conference set for July 20, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Thomas O. Farrish. Please call in to the Court's conference call line at 1-888-557-8511 and enter the pass code of 4478772# when prompted. A date for the settlement conference will be set during the telephone call. Because the parties will likely be ordered to attend the conference, either in-person or via videoconference, counsel are instructed to obtain their client's schedules over the next ninety days and have them available during the pre-conference. Counsel should also have their own calendars available to aid in scheduling. During the telephone call, counsel should be prepared to discuss what, if any, information needs to be exchanged and anything else that needs to be accomplished prior to the settlement conference to maximize its chances of success.If either counsel has a firm, unavoidable conflict at the appointed date and time, e.g., a previously-scheduled appearance in another court, s/he should not file a motion for continuance on the docket but rather should call Chambers at 860-240-3605 as soon as possible with opposing counsel on the line to work out an alternate day and time for the pre-conference with Judge Farrish's law clerk. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 7/13/23.(Wood, R.)
|
|
Filing 50
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish to conduct a settlement conference. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 7/13/2023.(Bozek, M.)
|
| Filing 49 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Gramlich, Michelle) |
|
Filing 48
ORDER. On June 27, 2023, the Court received a call in chambers from defense counsel inquiring as to whether she would be able to view the documents that were previously sealed in this action. The Court's orders on the docket reflect the reasons why particular documents were sealed pursuant to Local Rule 5(e). ECF Nos. 21, 22, 26. If Defendants believe that such documents contain information they are entitled to possess, then they shall file a motion requesting access to the sealed documents. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 06/28/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Answer deadline updated for Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership to 8/14/2023; SHP Corp to 8/14/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 47
ORDER granting #46 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. #33 ) by August 14, 2023. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 06/23/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 46 First MOTION for Extension of Time until August 14, 2023within which to Plead by Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp. (Gramlich, Michelle) |
|
Filing 45
ORDER. On June 20, 2023, the Court received a call in chambers from defense counsel inquiring as to Defendants' deadline for responding to Plaintiff's second amended complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(3) provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] defendant who... timely returns a waiver need not serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the request was sent." (emphasis added). The waiver of service at ECF No. #41 provides that the waiver was sent to Defendants on May 15, 2023. Despite that counsel for Defendants executed the waiver on June 14, 2023, Defendants must respond to the complaint within 60 days of May 15, the day the waiver was sent. Accordingly, the deadline set forth in the Court's order at ECF No. 43 is correct. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. #33 ) by July 14, 2023. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 06/21/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Answer deadline updated for SHP Corp to 7/14/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
| Answer deadline updated for Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership to 7/14/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 44 Disclosure Statement by Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp. (Gramlich, Michelle) |
|
Filing 43
ORDER. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's second amended complaint (ECF No. #33 ) by July 14, 2023. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 06/15/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Set Deadline: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 7/28/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 42 NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia Ann Boyce Iassogna on behalf of Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp (Iassogna, Patricia Ann) |
| Filing 41 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to All Defendants filed by Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp. (Gramlich, Michelle) |
| Filing 40 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Gramlich on behalf of Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp (Gramlich, Michelle) |
|
Filing 39
ORDER: Initial Discovery Protocols. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/8/2023.(Bozek, M.)
|
| USM 285 forms together with Notice of Lawsuit/Request for Waiver of Service, Complaint, all intake orders, Order granting IFP reviewed and sent to USM for service on defendant SHP Corp and Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 38 Disclosure Statement, by Gail Mansfield. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 37 USM 285 forms together with Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, one copy of all intake orders, consent to e-notice form, motion to participate in e-filing form, and instructions mailed to IFP plaintiff to complete and return to Clerk's office. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 36 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 8 Notice re: Disclosure Statement,, #33 Amended Complaint filed by Gail Mansfield, #4 Protective Order, #6 Notice, #3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #13 Disclosure Statement filed by Gail Mansfield, #5 Electronic Filing Order, #1 Complaint filed by Gail Mansfield. Signed by Clerk on 5/8/2023.(Mendez, D) |
| Filing 35 ENTERED IN ERROR* ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. *Gail Mansfield* *27 Morris Road* *Broadbrook, CT 06016*. (Mendez, D) Modified on 5/8/2023 to enter an error (Mendez, D). |
|
Filing 34
ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's second amended complaint, ECF No. #33 . At the outset, because it does not provide her address, email address, and telephone number, Plaintiff's second amended complaint does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which provides: "Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name--or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number." Given that Plaintiff included her address, email address, and telephone number on her initial complaint at ECF No. #1 , however, the Court will excuse her failure to comply with Rule 11(a) in this instance and will not require Plaintiff to refile her second amended complaint. Upon review of the allegations in Plaintiff's second amended complaint, the Court finds that the second amended complaint should proceed to service. Accordingly, as Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Clerk shall make arrangements for service by the U.S. Marshals Service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h).Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 05/01/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 33 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp, filed by Gail Mansfield. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 26
ORDER sua sponte sealing Plaintiff's Exhibit at ECF No. #25 . ECF No. #25 contains itemized medical billing statements regarding treatment Plaintiff received. Pursuant to Local Rule 5(e), ECF No. #25 is hereby ordered sealed, given that the sealing of Plaintiff's medical information is supported by the clear and compelling reason of protecting her privacy and the sealing order is narrowly tailored. The Clerk is directed to seal ECF No. #25 .The Court notes that Plaintiff filed ECF No. #25 on the public docket despite that the Court recently entered orders sealing similar items, ECF Nos. 21, 22, and despite that the Court directed Plaintiff to, among other things, file a notice stating whether she would proceed with the remaining claims in her present complaint or file a Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 24. The Court will not consider ECF No. #25 at this time because it is not filed as an exhibit to Plaintiff's complaint or any other pleading or motion. Nor is it responsive to the Court's order at ECF No. 24. In addition to complying with all instructions in ECF No. 24, Plaintiff is directed to consult the District of Connecticut's Guide for Self-Represented Litigants, which provides instructions for filing sensitive information on the docket. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/11/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 32 Sealed Document: Exhibit - Medical Records by Gail Mansfield re #18 MOTION to Amend. Redocketed per 22 Order. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 31 REDACTED EXHIBIT/Attachment by Gail Mansfield re #18 MOTION to Amend. Redocketed per 22 Order. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 30 Sealed Document: Exhibits - Medical Records by Gail Mansfield re #29 Objection. Redocketed per 22 Order. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 29 REDACTED OBJECTION to Dismissal To Complaint and Legal Council filed by Gail Mansfield.Redocketed per 22 order. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 28 Sealed Document: Exhibits - Medical Records by Gail Mansfield re #9 Amended Complaint. Redocketed per 21 Order. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 27 REDACTED EXHIBITS by Gail Mansfield re #9 Amended Complaint. Redocketed per 21 order. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 25 EXHIBIT, by Gail Mansfield. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 24
ORDER adopting #15 Judge Richardson's Recommended Ruling. In her amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her employer, Defendant SHP Corporation, discriminated against her based on her race and religion and retaliated against her after she made complaints to Defendant's human resources personnel. After conducting an initial review of the amended complaint, ECF No. #9 , Judge Richardson recommended that it be dismissed in part without prejudice, and that this action proceed to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert claims for discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. 1981, ECF No. #15 . Judge Richardson also recommended that, if Plaintiff wishes to pursue this action beyond claims under 1981, she file an amended complaint. In doing so, Judge Richardson reasoned that, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq., that claim should be dismissed without prejudice because she had not submitted a right to sue notice from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") or Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO"). Judge Richardson further reasoned that Plaintiff has not alleged state action for purposes of a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and that it is unclear whether Plaintiff is alleging a worker's compensation retaliation claim under Connecticut General Statutes 31-290a. Plaintiff has filed three separate objections to Judge Richardson's recommended ruling, all of which the Court has considered. In her objections, Plaintiff attempts to clarify the claims in her amended complaint, alleges several additional facts, and provides various additional documents. ECF Nos. #17 , #18 , #19 . Among the additional documents Plaintiff has submitted is a notice from the EEOC of her right to sue, as well as a copy of a complaint she apparently submitted to the CHRO. See ECF No. #17 at 7-17. These items, along with the additional facts in Plaintiff's objections, may suffice to allow her to proceed with other claims in addition to claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981. The proper way to assert additional facts and to show exhaustion of administrative remedies, however, is via a second amended complaint rather than objections to Judge Richardson's recommended ruling. Plaintiff's objections do not constitute addendums to her amended complaint; instead, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed on additional claims, she must allege facts supporting those claims in a single pleading that complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Richardson's recommended ruling as to the amended complaint docketed at ECF No. #9 ; the amended complaint is dismissed, except insofar as it raises claims for discrimination and retaliation under 1981. If Plaintiff seeks to pursue any additional claims beyond discrimination and retaliation under 1981, she will be permitted to file a second amended complaint, as noted below. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff's filing at ECF No. #17 is styled as an "Objection to Dismissal to Complaint and Legal Council" [sic]. To the extent Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of Judge Richardson's ruling at ECF No. #16 denying her request for appointment of counsel for all purposes in this action, this request for reconsideration is denied. The standard for granting reconsideration is strict, and "reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked -- matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019); see also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1; Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (reconsideration warranted "only when the party identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice" (cleaned up)). Here, Plaintiff has failed to identify any controlling decisions or data that Judge Richardson overlooked. Moreover, while Plaintiff has alleged additional facts that might suffice to allow certain claims to proceed past initial review, it is not yet clear that her claims are likely to be of substance. Accordingly, her request for reconsideration of Judge Richardson's ruling at ECF No. #16 is denied. Plaintiff has two options regarding how to proceed: (1) she may proceed only as to the 1981 claims set forth in ECF No. 9 and discussed herein and in Judge Richardson's recommended ruling; or (2) she may file a Second Amended Complaint to state additional claims. If she chooses to amend her complaint, Plaintiff may seek to remedy the deficiencies described in Judge Richardson's recommended ruling, including by properly asserting that she has exhausted her administrative remedies. By May 1, 2023, Plaintiff shall file a notice with the Court stating which of these options she is choosing. Upon receipt of that notice, the Court will set further deadlines that apply to this case.If Plaintiff desires to file a Second Amended Complaint, the Court orders that Plaintiff consult with the New Haven Legal Aid Association's Federal Pro Se Program through its website, https://nhlegal.org/federalprose, to inquire if that Program will be able to assist Plaintiff with drafting such a complaint. If that Program is unable to assist, Plaintiff shall inform the Court in her notice due on May 1, 2023. The Court will then consider appointing counsel for the limited purpose of assisting Plaintiff in drafting a Second Amended Complaint that satisfies Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10.Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/07/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 23
ORDER granting #18 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/07/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 22
ORDER sua sponte sealing exhibits accompanying #17 and #18 Plaintiff's objections to Recommended Ruling. Pages 20-23 of ECF No. 17 and pages 6-7 and 16-19 of ECF No. 18-1 contain Plaintiff's medical records. In addition, pages 13, 24, 25, 32, and 33 of ECF No. 17 and pages 8, 9, 22, and 25 of ECF No. 18-1 include Plaintiff's Social Security number and/or date of birth in unredacted form. Pursuant to Local Rule 5(e), these pages are hereby ordered sealed, given that the sealing of Plaintiff's medical information and personal identifying information is supported by the clear and compelling reason of protecting her privacy and the sealing order is narrowly tailored. Sealing also complies with the District of Connecticut's Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures, which require that Social Security numbers be redacted to the last four digits and that dates of birth be redacted to the year. The Clerk is directed to seal ECF No. 17 and re-docket that filing, with pages 20-23 redacted, Plaintiff's Social Security number redacted to the last four digits on page 33, and Plaintiff's date of birth redacted to the year on pages 13, 24, 25, 32, and 33. The Clerk shall then separately docket pages 20-23 of ECF No. 17 as a sealed document. The Clerk is further directed to seal ECF No. 18-1 and re-docket that filing, with pages 6-7 and 16-19 redacted and Plaintiff's date of birth redacted to the year on pages 8, 9, 22, and 25. The Clerk shall then separately docket pages 6-7 and 16-19 of ECF No. 18-1 as a sealed document. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/07/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 21
ORDER sua sponte sealing exhibits accompanying #9 Amended Complaint. Pages 19-20, 25, and 28-30 of ECF No. 9-1, the exhibits accompanying Plaintiff's amended complaint, contain Plaintiff's medical records, and pages 22, 23, and 34 of ECF No. 9-1 include Plaintiff's Social Security number or date of birth in unredacted form. Pursuant to Local Rule 5(e), these pages are hereby ordered sealed, given that the sealing of Plaintiff's medical information and personal identifying information is supported by the clear and compelling reason of protecting her privacy and the sealing order is narrowly tailored. Sealing also complies with the District of Connecticut's Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures, which require that Social Security numbers be redacted to the last four digits and that dates of birth be redacted to the year. The Clerk is directed to seal ECF No. 9-1 and re-docket that filing, with pages 19-20, 25, and 28-30 redacted, Plaintiff's Social Security number redacted to the last four digits on page 34, and Plaintiff's date of birth redacted to the year on pages 22 and 23. The Clerk is also directed to separately docket pages 19-20, 25, and 28-30 of ECF No. 9-1 as a sealed document. Finally, the Clerk is directed to seal the entirety of ECF No. 11-1, which is a duplicate of ECF No. 9-1 that was docketed in error. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/07/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 20 MOTION to Amend the amendment #18 MOTION to Amend/Correct #17 Objection/Reply/Response to Recommended Ruling, by Gail Mansfield. Responses due by 4/10/2023. (Attachments: #1 Attachments) (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE to Amend, Exhibits by Gail Mansfield re: #18 MOTION to Amend/Correct #17 Objection/Reply/Response to Recommended Ruling. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 18 MOTION to Amend #17 Objection, by Gail Mansfield. Responses due by 4/5/2023. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(Mendez, D) |
| Filing 17 OBJECTION to Dismissal To Complaint and Legal Council, filed by Gail Mansfield. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 16
ORDER denying #10 plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Robert A. Richardson on 2/17/2023. (Fries, J.)
|
| Filing 15 RECOMMENDED RULING recommending that #1 the complaint be dismissed, in part, without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). See attached ruling, 11 Pages. Objections due by 3/8/2023. Signed by Judge Robert A. Richardson on 2/17/2023.(Fries, J.) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER granting #2 plaintiff's motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis based on the plaintiff's financial information but recommending dismissal of the complaint. Signed by Judge Robert A. Richardson on 2/17/2023. (Fries, J.)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson for a ruling on #10 MOTION to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/13/2022.Motions referred to Robert A. Richardson(Bozek, M.)
|
| Filing 13 Corporate Disclosure Statement, by Gail Mansfield. (Mendez, D) |
| Docket Entry Correction re #11 Amended Complaint, entered in error. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Gail Mansfield. (Peterson, M) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to SHP Corp. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 11 **ENTERED IN ERROR** AMENDED COMPLAINT against Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp, filed by Gail Mansfield. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits) (Mendez, D) Modified on 12/12/2022 to enter an error. (Mendez, D). |
| Filing 9 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Freshwater Pond LTD, Partnership, SHP Corp, filed by Gail Mansfield. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits) (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson for a ruling on #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and an initial review of the complaint. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/1/2022.Motions referred to Robert A. Richardson(Bozek, M.)
|
| Filing 6 Notice re Initial Discovery Protocols. Signed by Clerk on 11/23/2022. (Attachments: #1 Initial Discovery Attachment) (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/23/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/23/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 1/22/2023. Discovery due by 5/25/2023. Dispositive Motions due by 6/29/2023. Signed by Clerk on 11/23/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Gail Mansfield. (Barry, L) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Sttp Corp, filed by Gail Mansfield. (Barry, L) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge Robert A. Richardson added. (Shafer, J.) |
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
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.
