Plaintiffs' Brief Opposing Addition of Hartford as a Party

    MOLLER, HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C. 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

90 GILLETT STREET 

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06105 

SusaN M. CORMIER TELEPHONE 

WESLEY W. HORTON (203) 522-8338 
KIMBERLY A. KNOX TELECOPIER 

WILLIAM R. MOLLER* (203) 728-0401 

KAREN L. MURDOCH 

CHRISTY SCOTT 

ROBERT M. SHIELDS, JR. 

*ALSO ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY FAX 

September 23, 1994 

Honorable Harry S. Hammer 
SUPERIOR COURT 
69 Brooklyn Street 
Rockville, CT 06066 

FAX: 875-0777 

Re: Sheff, et al. v. O’Neill, et al. 

Dear Judge Hammer: 

Enclosed is a copy a brief I will bring to the hearing next 
Wednesday. 

Very truly yours, 

Wesley Horton 

WWH:jt 
cc: Bernard McGovern, Esq. (BY FAX) 

Martha Watts Prestley, Esq. (BY FAX) 

 



e 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

90
 
G
I
L
L
E
T
T
 

S
T
R
E
E
T
 

e 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
0
6
1
0
5
 

ee 
(2
03
) 

5
2
2
-
8
3
3
8
 

e 
J
U
R
I
S
 

NO
. 

3
8
4
7
8
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
SH

IE
LD

S,
 

P. 
C.
 

      
| 

1 

CV 89-0360977S 

MILO SHEFF, ET AL. SUPERIOR COURT 

VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD/ 

NEW BRITAIN AT HARTFORD 

WILLIAM A. O’NEILL, ET AL. SEPTEMBER 23, 1994 

PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF OPPOSING 
ADDITION OF HARTFORD AS A PARTY 
  

Neither a town nor a school board is a necessary or indispensable 

party in this case. In Horton v. Meskill, 187 Conn. 187, 445 A.2d 579 
  

(1982), the trial court denied the intervention of various 

municipalities and school boards as untimely (p. 193), but the Supreme 

Court did not decide the case on that basis. The Court said (pp. 

194-95): 

In any event, we need not decide whether under the circumstances 
of this case the applicants have lost their right to intervene 
due to their delay in seeking intervention because the applicants 
never had the right to intervene in the first place. 

If they never had the right to intervene, they could not have been 

necessary parties. 

Since a municipality is not a necessary party, there is no need 

to bring any such party into the case. 

  

  
 



e 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
SH

IE
LD

S,
 

P. 
C.
 

90
 
G
I
L
L
E
T
T
 

S
T
R
E
E
T
 

e 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
0
6
1
0
5
 

e 
(2

03
) 

5
2
2
-
8
3
3
8
 

e 
J
U
R
I
S
 

NO
. 

3
8
4
7
8
 

      

Practice Book §390 states: 

The Court will not render declaratory judgments upon the 
complaint of any person: 

(d) unless all persons having an interest in the subject 
matter of the complaint are parties to the action or have 
reasonable notice thereof. 

It is clear that Hartford has ''reasonable notice thereof." No 

case holds that notice to interested persons, as opposed to making them 

parties, deprives a court of jurisdiction to enter a declaratory 

judgment. National Transportation Co., Inc. v. Toquet, 123 Conn. 468, 
  

196 A. 344 (1937), like all the §390(d) cases that were dismissed, 

concerned a matter where no notice at all was given to certain 

interested persons. See Moller and Horton, Connecticut Practice Book 

Annotated, 34 Ed., pp. 583-87 and 1994 pocket part, pp. 221-24. 

Therefore, any other observations by the Supreme Court are dictum. 

Secondly, the Court’s dictum in Toquet about numerosity was not 

mandatory (p. 484): 

Where they are reasonably within the reach of process and are not 
so numerous that it would impose an unreasonable burden upon the 
plaintiff they should be made parties; . . . [emphasis added]. 

Thirdly, since Hartford, as discussed above, is not a necessary party, 

it is merely an interested party. That puts it in the same legal 

category as all other municipalities in the Hartford area. That then 

  

 



  

returns us to the numerosity issue, which is why the plaintiffs asked 

for an order of notice in the first place. 

In any event the Toquet dictum is not the law. In the more 

recent case of Kukanskis v. Jasut, 169 Conn. 29, 31, 362 A.2d 898 
  

(1975), only two or three persons were held to be interested in the 

case, so there was no numerosity problem. All had notice but not all 

were parties. A motion to dismiss on the basis that all should have 

been parties was denied; the holding (not the dictum) was that notice 

was sufficient. 

e 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

There is no possible jurisdictional problem with Hartford’s 

absence as a party. Adding Hartford as a party at this late date would 

create rather than solve problems. The Court should not order Hartford 

added as a party. 

PLAINTIFFS, 

7, re 
esley Horton 

MOLLER, "HORTON & SHIELDS, P.C. 
90 Gillett Street 
Hartford, CT 06105 

(203) 522-8338 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
S
H
I
E
L
D
S
,
 

P. 
C.
 

90
 
G
I
L
L
E
T
T
 

S
T
R
E
E
T
 

e 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
0
6
1
0
5
 

e 
(2
03
) 

5
2
2
-
8
3
3
8
 

e 
J
U
R
I
S
 

NO
. 

3
8
4
7
8
 

    John Brittain 
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT 

School of Law 

65 Elizabeth Street | 
Hartford, CT 06103 

      
 



  

Martha Stone 

Philip D. Tegeler 
CCLU 

32 Grand Street 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Helen Hershkoff 

Adam S. Cohen 

ACLU 

132 West 43rd Street 
New York, NY 10036 

Theodore Shaw 

Dennis D. Parker 
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational 

Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

e 
A
T
T
O
R
N
E
Y
S
 

AT
 
L
A
W
 

Sandra Del Valle 

Puerto Rican Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013 

Wilfred Rodriguez 
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES 
1229 Albany Avenue 
Hartford, CT 06102 

e 
H
A
R
T
F
O
R
D
,
 

CT
 
0
6
1
0
5
 

e 
(2

03
) 

5
2
2
-
8
3
3
8
 

ee 
J
U
R
I
S
 

NO
. 

3
8
4
7
8
 

M
O
L
L
E
R
,
 
H
O
R
T
O
N
 

& 
SH
IE
LD
S,
 

P. 
C.

 

| CERTIFICATION 

90
 
G
I
L
L
E
T
T
 

S
T
R
E
E
T
 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was faxed and 
mailed to the following counsel of record on September 23, 1994: 

Bernard McGovern, Esq. 
Martha Watts Prestley, Esq. 
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
110 Sherman Street 
Hartford, CT 06105