• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUTFRANK RICCI, ET AL, ::Plaintiffs ::V. :::JOHN DESTEFANO, ET AL ::Defendants.NO. 3:04CV01109 (JBA)November 17, 2009REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCEAt the November 5, 2009 scheduling conference with this Court, all parties agreed thatthe City of New Haven should proceed forthwith with promotions of the plaintiffs, and the Courtordered the parties to submit either a joint or separate proposed orders ”directing undisputedpromotions.” Dkt. No. 148. By letter to plaintiffs’ counsel on November 6, 2009, counsel forthe City of New Haven identified fourteen individual plaintiffs who, the City concedes, areentitled to promotion, and Plaintiffs agree that at least these individuals are entitled to suchremedial relief.On November 13, 2009, per the Court’s order, the parties submitted proposed orders
 
2
respecting the promotions of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs submitted a proposed order that identifiedthose fourteen individual plaintiffs whose promotions, based on the parties’ sharedunderstanding, are undisputed and should be immediately effected. Dkt. No. 155. Thedefendants’ proposed order, however, did not similarly identify the individual plaintiffs whosepromotions are undisputed.
See
Dkt. No. 156. The City’s proposed order respecting promotionsinstead directs a certification of eligible lists prepared from results of the 2003 captain’s andlieutenant’s promotional examinations, does not specify which individual plaintiffs will bepromoted, and provides the City with discretionary authority to promote nonparties.
Id.
Contrary to Plaintiffs’ understanding of the Court’s limited purpose in requesting these proposedorders, the City’s proposed order appears to go well beyond the narrow scope of providingprompt and undisputed remedial relief for as many plaintiffs as possible, as well as requestingother actions by theCourt, some clear and others unclear.In light of the above, Plaintiffs respectfully request a status conference with the Court inorder to ascertain the Court’s intended course of action in response to the parties’ proposedorders and, if necessary, to gain a clarification of the City’s proposed order.THE PLAINTIFFSBY:/S/ Karen Lee Torre____Karen Lee TorreFed. Bar No. ct01707Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis LLC129 Church Street, Suite 405New Haven, CT 06510
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...