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;
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.”
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.
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...
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
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.