Motion,Ex Parte: CANDOR CAPITAL LLC Et Al v. LEEDER REALTY COMPANY, LLC Et Al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                DOCKET NO. NNH-CV-22-6119902-S

CANDOR CAPITAL, LLC, et. al.                )
                                            )                 SUPERIOR COURT
            Plaintiffs,                     )
                                            )                 JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
                                            )                 NEW HAVEN
v.                                          )
                                            )
LEEDER REALTY COMPANY, LLC, et. al.         )
                                            )
            Defendants.                     )
___________________________________________ )                 MARCH 22, 2024


       DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REARGUE

       Defendant, Leeder Realty Company, LLC (“Leeder”) objects to plaintiff’s motion to

reargue the denial of its motion to modify the scheduling order (Doc. # 189.00). The Court

correctly denied plaintiff’s motion to modify (Doc. # 186.10) and there is no reason for it to be

reconsidered.

       The relevant facts demonstrate that plaintiff brought this case in December 2021. To the

extent that it needed discovery to support its case, plaintiff sat on its rights and did next to

nothing allowing all of the discovery dates in the scheduling order to pass.

      A scheduling order was submitted by the parties on August 25, 2022 (Doc. # 145.00) and

       approved by the Court the next day. (Doc. # 145.10). The Court’s order states that the

       “parties may modify any of the deadlines contained herein by agreement . . . .

       Agreements to modify the dates . . . will not extend the trial date.

      The Scheduling Order provides that discovery would be closed by August 1, 2023.

      Defendant filed a Motion to Strike plaintiff’s amended pleading on February 23, 2023.

       (Doc. # 167.00). That motion was denied on February 2, 2024 (Doc. # 167.50).
   Discovery is not stayed during the pendency of a motion to strike.               See e.g.,

    Farias v. Rodriguez, 2023 Conn. Super. LEXIS 710 (Super. May 15, 2023)(denying

    motion to stay discovery while motion to strike pending).

   Plaintiff did not move to stay discovery or otherwise move to modify the scheduling

    order until its February 27, 2024 motion filed seven (7) months after the expiration of the

    discovery deadline.

   In plaintiff’s motion it attaches an email from April 19, 2023 in which its counsel

    represents that it needed to schedule depositions. Yet, plaintiff never issued a deposition

    notice or subpoena.

   Defendant’s counsel is under no obligation to agree to or negotiate a modification to the

    scheduling order. Plaintiff’s counsel was well aware that there was no agreement to seek

    modification of the scheduling order.

   Defendant saw no need to modify the scheduling order insofar as plaintiff has the burden

    of proof and had made judicial admissions of relevant facts and authenticated relevant

    documents in its pleadings.     See Complaint; Amended Complaint (Docs. # 107.00-

    123.00); Amended Complaint (Docs. # 148.00-164.00); Amended Complaint (Doc. #

    166.00).

   The trial was set for May 1, 2024 on August 29, 2022. It has recently been rescheduled

    for May 8, 2024. Plaintiff concedes in its motion the importance of scheduling orders

    and the court’s need to enforce them. Pl. Br. at 3-4.

   There is no good cause to amend the scheduling order. Plaintiff filed its fourth version of

    a complaint (Doc. # 185.00) that clearly violates Practice Book section 10-44. It should

    be summarily stricken (Doc. # 187.00) and the case proceed on the January 26, 2023



                                             2
        version of the pleading (Doc. # 166.00) with its exhibits, as modified by plaintiff’s

        withdrawal of various claims and the Court’s order.1

                                               CONCLUSION

        For the foregoing reasons the motion to reargue should be denied.



                                   DEFENDANT,

                                   By:      ____/s/ Ian E. Bjorkman____
                                            Ian E. Bjorkman
                                            Ryan & Ryan, LLC
                                            900 Chapel Street
                                            Suite 621
                                            New Haven, CT 06510
                                            (203) 773-9110
                                            ian@ibjorkman.com
                                            Juris Number 307510
                                            Juris Number 421190

                                            Their Attorney




1The brief in support of defendant’s motion to strike the latest version of the complaint (Doc. # 188.00) is
mislabeled on the docket as a memorandum in opposition to the motion,


                                                        3
                                     CERTIFICATION

       I hereby certify that on March 22, 2024 a copy of foregoing was sent by email to:

Stephanie L. Stich, Esq.
340 Twin Lakes Road
North Branford, CT 06471


stephaniestichesq@gmail.com


Richard Rapice, Esq.
1266 East Main Street
Suite 700R
Stamford, CT 06902

richard@rapicelaw.com



                                    /s/ Ian E. Bjorkman_____
                                    Ian E. Bjorkman




                                               4