<xmp> <body> </xmp>

Democratic town committee member accused of non-compliance in injury case

Thursday, January 19, 2017
Time: 1:34 PM

Cross post from HatCityBLOG

It appears that the secretary of the Danbury Democratic Town Committee will have some explaining to do in court...

In December 2015, Sherri Neptune, a third ward member of Danbury Democratic Town Committee and 2015 Democratic candidate for city council, filed a injury lawsuit against Wal-Mart in which she claimed the following (CT Judicial Branch):

3. On or about October 31 2013, the plaintiff was examining some of the items the defendant had offered for sale, when she was struck by a cart operated by an employee of the defendant.

4. The plaintiff’s injuries and losses were caused by the carelessness and negligence of the defendant Walmart’s employee acting in the course of his employment and Walmart is responsible for its employee’s negligence.


5. Due to the negligence and carelessness of the defendant’s employee, the plaintiff was caused to suffer the following serious injures, some or all of which may be permanent in nature:

  • 

a. lower back pain

  • b. leg pain

  • c. lumbar sprain and pain;
  • 
d. headaches;
  • 
e. neck pain
  • 
f. Disc bulges at 
1.) L4-L5 with moderate to severe facet arthropathy; 2.) L5-S1 with prominent central disk protrusion
g. other personal injuries.


6. Also as a result of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant, the Plaintiff was forced to expend suns for medical care, physical therapy, hospital care, diagnostic tests, surgical care, X-rays, prescriptions, and other therapeutic needs and will be required to do so in the future.



7. As a final result of the carelessness and negligence of the Dependent’s employee, the planted has lost some of her ability to enjoy life’s activities.

In response to a media inquiry regarding the lawsuit, Neptune's attorney elaborated on the incident (NewsTimes: 08.29.16).
William Burke, an attorney from Fairfield who is presenting Neptune, said his client was bending over to examine the ingredients in a product on the lower shelf when the cart struck her several times.

“She obviously didn’t expect to be hit by a shopping cart at the time,” Burke said. “She continues to suffer from the incident including headaches and back pain.”

In court documents filed at Danbury Superior Court, attorneys for Walmart denied the allegations and on January 4 2016, requested that Neptune "answer standard Interrogatories and Requests for Production."

On September 19, 2016, Wal-Mart filed a motion of compliance against Neptune in which the following was stated:

NOW COMES defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Conn. Practice Book § 13-14 et seq., hereby move this Honorable Court for an order compelling the plaintiff, Sherrie Neptune, to fully and fairly comply with the defendant’s standard interrogatories and requests for production served January 4, 2016.

[...]

The defendant served standard discovery on the plaintiff on January 4, 2016 (please see Docket Entry 101.00). The plaintiff has never sought an extension of time, yet she has not responded at all to the outstanding discovery. The defendant would like to make efforts to resolve this matter and will of course have to prepare for trial in the event the matter does not settle, but neither can be done in the absence of plaintiff’s sworn discovery responses.

On December 13 2016, Wal-Mart filed a second motion of compliance against Neptune where the following was stated:
The defendant served standard discovery on the plaintiff nearly a year ago - on January 4, 2016 to be exact (please see Docket Entry 101.00). The plaintiff has never sought an extension of time, yet she has not responded at all to the outstanding discovery. Per the Scheduling Order (Docket Entry 103.00), all discovery was to be completed by October 1, 2016. The plaintiff is now well beyond that deadline and trial is scheduled to commence on April 18, 2017.

The defendant attempted to secure the plaintiff’s compliance through informal means. That having failed the defendant filed a motion for order of compliance on September 19, 2016 (Docket Entry 106.00). The defendant had hoped by this time to not only have secured the plaintiff’s discovery compliance, but also to have taken her deposition. That deposition has been noticed multiple tomes but canceled due to the lack of discovery compliance.

[...]

The parties appeared at a pretrial conference on October 27, 2016. The defendant had believed the plaintiff would be providing her discovery compliance at the conference or just before it. Instead, the plaintiff provided a haphazard stack of medical records at the conference. The content of these limited records confirms that they are woefully incomplete and not at all responsive to the defendant’s standard discovery requests. More importantly, the plaintiff has still provided no interrogatory responses – verified or otherwise. Follow up calls to gain said compliance have not borne fruit. This fact, plus the approaching trial date, have necessitated the filing of this motion.

In response to Wal-Mart's second motion of compliance, the judge in the case ordered all parties to be present for a hearing on the matter on January 30.
Hearing is scheduled on this motion for order of compliance for 1/30/17 at 10:30 a.m. before Judge Ozalis. The plaintiff is ordered to file a status report on compliance with defendant's January 2016 discovery requests by 1/25/17.
Should make for an interesting court appearance on the 30th...stay tuned...


RELATED...

NEWSTIMES: Danbury town committee member sues Walmart


© 2017 Hat City Blog | READ, WATCH, AND LEARN.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
PEOPLE-POWERED MEDIA.


trans_button

Lowest Gas Prices in Danbury
Danbury Gas Prices provided by GasBuddy.com


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License

make money online blogger templates

trans_button
trans_button
Danbury City Charter
Danbury Code of Ordinances
Robert's Rules of Order

trans_button
DOWNLOAD AND ANALYZE MARK BOUGHTON'S ELECTION AND PAC FINANCE REPORTS

Danbury 2005 election results
Danbury 2007 election results
Danbury 2009 election results
Danbury 2011 election results
Danbury 2013 election results
Danbury 2015 election results
City of Danbury calendar

trans_button
The Mercurial
Danbury News Times
Danbury Patch
Danbury Daily Voice
Tribuna Newspaper
Danbury El Canillita
(Spanish edition)

Danbury El Canillita
(English translation)

Comunidade News
(Portuguese edition)

Comunidade News
(English translation)


trans_button
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.

The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.

Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.

Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.

CLICK HERE TO READ/DOWNLOAD MAYOR BOUGHTON'S DEPOSITION

CLICK HERE TO READ/DOWNLOAD MIKE McLACHLAN (then MAYOR CHIEF OF STAFF) DEPOSITION

Danbury Area Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants v.
U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security
3:06-cv-01992-RNC ( D. Conn. )

(02.25.08) Court docket

(10.24.07) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Emergency Motion for Protective Order

(09.26.07) Press Release

(12.14.06) Complaint


Barrera v. Boughton, No. 07-01436
(D. Conn. filed Sept. 26, 2007)

(02.25.08) Court Docket

Amended complaint

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Order on Motion to Dismiss

Defendants' Answer to Amended Complaint

NEW HAVEN REGISTER: Immigrant's 2006 arrest was flawed Danbury mayor testifies

(10.05.07 (VIDEO) Boughton mislead the public about Danbury's involvement in raid

(09.18.07) Yale Law Students expose Danbury involvement in raid

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Interview with Yale Law Students at FOI presser

(12.14.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 FOI complaint media roundup

City Clerk Jean Natale standing next to skinhead sparks outrage

(10.03.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 rally

(09.29.06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 case deepens

Word of raid spread across the country

(09/29/06) VIDEO: Danbury 11 protest news conference

(09/29/06) Immigrant newspaper "El Canillita" gives best account of ICE day labor raid at Kennedy Park




trans_button
trans_button


Dunkin Donuts logo