Corrected Objection to Plaintiffs' Request for Permission to Amend Complaint

    DOCKET NO. CV 89-03609778 

MILO SHEFF, ET Al. : SUPERIOR COURT 

: JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

Vv. : HARTFORD /NEW BRITAIN 

: AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, ET AL. 2 OCTOBER 14, 1994 

CORRECTED OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND COMPLAINT   

Pursuant to Practice Book §176(c), the defendants hereby 

object to the plaintiffs’ request for permission to amend their 

consolidated amended complaint, which request is dated October 6, 

1994, for the following reasons: 

As to Proposed Paragraph 66a: 
  

1. The plaintiffs’ motion is made pursuant to P.B. §176(c) 

and that section by its terms authorizes the amendment of a 

complaint only prior to trial. 

2. The allegations of the proposed paragraph merely state 

evidentiary matters and fail to allege any facts essential to 

the statement of any of the causes of action which the plaintiffs 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 
TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED 

 



have attempted to make out in this action. Todd v. Bradley, 99 
  

Conti. ‘307, 310-311 (1923). 

As To Proposed Paragraph 66b: 
  

1. The plaintiffs’ motion is made pursuant to P.B. §176(c) 

and that section by its terms authorizes the amendment of 

complaints only prior to trial. 

2. The proposed paragraph alleges an event, the passage of 

P.A. 93-263, which occurred after the conclusion of the taking of 

evidence and is, therefore, immaterial to stating any of the 

plaintiffs’ causes of action. See Fasulo v. Arafeh, 173 Conn. 
  

473, 481 (1977). 

3. The proposed paragraph is argumentative and except for 

the words ”a bill . . . was passed, P.A. 93-263” states nothing 

more than legal conclusions. See Osborn v. Darien, 119 Conn. 
  

182, 186 (1934); Williams v. National Fruit Exchange, 95 Conn. 
  

300, 307, 308. (1920); Howard v. Redden, 93 Conn. 604,.614 (1919); 
  

Water Commissioners v. Manchester, 89 Conn. 671, 681-682 (1915). 
  

4, ''As to the words 7a bill . . . was passed, P.A. 93-263" 

statutory law need not be pleaded because the court may take  



judicial notice of it. Warneke v. Preissner, 103 Conn. 503, 505 
  

(1925). 

FOR THE DEFENDANTS 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  

Berhard F, /McGovern, Jr. 
Assistant /Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 

Hartford, Connecticut 06105 

Juris No. 085230 

Tel. 566-7173 

AY Lh Yi V0, 
tha Watts Prestley-~Juris 486172 

Assistant Attorney General 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, Connecticut 06105 
Tel. 566-7173 

Alfred A. Lindseth 
Sutherland, Asbill, & Brennan 
999 Peachtree Street, NE 

Atlanta, GA 30309-3996 

 



ORDER 

The foregoing objection having been heard, it is hereby 

ordered: SUSTAINED/OVERRULED. 

By the Court, 

  

Judge /Clerk 

 



  

CERTIFICATION   

This 1s to. certify that on this 14th day of October, 1994 a 

copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following counsel of 

record: 

John Brittain, Esq. Wilfred Rodriguez, Esq. 
University of Connecticut Hispanic Advocacy Project 
School of Law Neighborhood Legal Services 

65 Elizabeth Street 1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06105 Hartford, CT" 06112 

Philip Tegeler, Esq. Wesley W. Horton, Esq. 
Martha Stone, Esq. Moller, Horton & 
Connecticut Civil Fineberqg, P.C. 
Liberties Union 90 Gillett Street 
32 Grand Street Hartford, CT. 06105 

Hartford, CT 06105 

Sandra Del Valle, Esq. Julius L. Chambers 
Ruben Franco, Esq. Marianne Engleman Lado, Esq. 
Jenny Rivera, Esq. Theodore M. Shaw 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense Dennis D. Parker 
and Education Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund and 
99 Hudson Street Education Fund, Inc. 

14th Floor 99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 New York, NY 10013 

John A. Powell, Esq. 
Helen Hershkoff, Esq. 
Adam S. Cohen, Esq. 
American Civil Liberties Union 
132 West 43rd Street 

New York, NY 10036 

  
Bernard F. McGovern, Jr. 

Assistant Attorney General 

bfml216sd