Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-1139 - Winter et al v. State of Connecticut et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-1139 - Winter et al v. State of Connecticut et al
September 27, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 62 Motion to Withdraw the Second Amended Complaint against certain defendants; and denying 63 Motion for Summary Judgment, in accordance with the attached Memorandum of Decision. Trial will go forward on Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims against the individual defendants and on their Title VII claims against the Defendant state entities and the individual defendants against whom Plaintiffs continued to pursue claims in their official capacities. The remaining claims are dismissed. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 09/27/2016. (Hudson, C)
October 19, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER denying 72 Motion for Reconsideration in full as procedurally improper. Reconsideration is proper only in the case of an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Natl Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 12451255 (2d Cir. 1992). While Defendants articulate the standard for reconsideration in their motion, their arguments fall short of that high bar. Defendants establish no clear error in the Courts evaluation of the facts and law presented by the parties in their briefing for and against Judgment on the Pleadings and Summary Judgment. Nor do Defendants offer newly available evidence relevant to the Courts Order. Defendants also fail to establish that the Courts ruling, while correct at the time, has been rendered in error by intervening law. A Motion for Reconsideration is not a vehicle for relitigating previously decided issues, or for raising new arguments that could have been raised earlier. Defendants Motion is accordingly denied. The Court also directs the parties' attention to the attached Corrected Memorandum of Decision Granting and Denying, in Part, Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Corrected Memorandum of Decision remedies a clerical error in the text of the Court's conclusion, which incorrectly stated Plaintiffs' Title VII claims were to continue against individuals in their official capacities. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 10/19/2016. (Hudson, C)