Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chelsea Gardens Lawsuit Documents (CT - Gov)
Chelsea Gardens Lawsuit Documents (CT - Gov)
) SUPERIOR COURT
)
VS.
) AT NEW LONDON
)
) AUGUST 31, 2015
It is also important to note that the City has not made an application to be made a
party, quite possibly because, upon information and belief, there exists an
indemnification provision in the lease.
STANDARD OF LAW
The conditions necessary to qualify for intervention as of right were set forth in
State Board of Education v. Waterbury, 21 Conn. App. 67, 72, 571 A.2d 148 (1990). 3
Intervention as of right requires that (1) the application be timely, (2) the applicant claim
an interest relating to the transaction that is the subject of the action, (3) the applicant
show that its ability to protect that interest may as a practical matter be impaired or
impeded by disposition of the action, (4) the applicant's interest is not adequately
represented by the existing parties. "Failure to meet any one of the conditions is
sufficient to deny intervention as of right." State Board of Education v. Waterbury, supra,
citing NAACP v. New York, 413 U.S. 345, 369, 93 S.Ct. 2591 2604, 37 L.Ed.2d 648
(1973). "[A] person or entity does not have a sufficient interest to qualify for the right to
intervene merely because an impending judgment will have some effect on him, her, or
it. The judgment to be rendered must affect the proposed intervenor's direct or personal
rights, not those of another." In re Baby Girl B., 224 Conn. 263, 275, 618 A.2d 1 (1992).
entity leasing the site to the defendant become a necessary party simply because of its
status as an owner where title or possession is not an issue in the suit. In Tappin v.
Homecoming Financial Network, Inc., 265 Conn. 741, 753, 830 A.2d 711 (2003), our
Supreme Court observed that the title to property and possession of that property are
separate questions. See, Housing Dev. Fund, Inc. v. Burke Real Estate Mgmt., LLC
____ Conn. App._____, AC36198 (Conn. App., February 6, 2015).
As the cause of action only seeks to limit the amount and kind of activities on the
site and does not seek to determine or impair the relationship of the lessor and lessee,
the lessor need not be made a party to the action as none of the violations are alleged
to have been caused by the City as lessor.
Wherefore, the motion to add party is likely only filed to occasion delay at the
expense of natural resource protection.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Evans, Jr.
By_________________________
Keith R. Ainsworth, Esq.
Evans, Feldman & Ainsworth, LLC #101240
261 Bradley Street
P.O. Box 1694
New Haven, CT 06507-1694
(203)772-4900 / (203)782-1356 fax
krainsworth@EFandA-law.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing was deposited in the United States
mail, first-class, postage pre-paid this 31st day of August, 2015 and electronically filed
in the electronic filing system of the Superior Court in the above captioned matter and
served upon the parties electronically and/or by mail to those requesting such service
and addressed to:
David Hill & Associates, LLC, 180 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 202, Glastonbury, CT
06033 dhill@dhill-law.com
Block, Janey & Pascal, 138 Main Street, Norwich, CT 06360 rpascal@bjplawyers.com
Hasset & George, PC, 945 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, CT 06070
mcdonald@hgesq.com
________________________
Keith R. Ainsworth, Esq.
KNL-CV-15-6024488-S
) SUPERIOR COURT
)
VS.
) AT NEW LONDON
)
) AUGUST 28, 2015
In May 15, 2015 the Defendant admits beginning work on Phase I of a permit which
expired before work began. (See Defendants Motion for Bond August 26 at p. 1).
Plaintiff has retained a licensed arborist and soil scientist who has submitted an affidavit
detailing violations of state regulation governing wetlands including ongoing harm to
wetlands resources due to non-compliant work.
Defendants counsel has admitted at a status conference on August 27 that the
project is one which will take between 10 and twenty years to complete. Thus, any delay
caused the project by a temporary injunction for several months pending a full hearing
on the merits can reasonably be described as de minimus.
In addition Chelsea Gardens has no ongoing operations on the site which is
requested to be subject to the injunction. Defendants counsel represented in open court
on July 20, 2015 that no work had been performed on site since May 20152.
Regardless, the Defendant has no buildings, structures, gardens, butterfly houses,
tours, or any income-producing operations at the site which could be disrupted and
cause the Defendant monetary or compensable loss.
Chelsea Gardens has submitted no offer of proof of the possible harm it might suffer
if it is prevented from destroying trees which have stood for a century and is prevented
from causing sedimentation of adjacent wetlands.
Plaintiff believes from the libelous tone adopted in Chelsea Gardens motion3 that its
intention is to use the request for a bond not to protect a legitimate prospect of
i n May 2015 and t hat c ouns el unbel i ev eabl y opi ned i n c our t t hat t he r emov al
of t r ai l er l oads of f el l ed t r ees does not c ons t i t ut e wor k on t he s i t e.
3 Def endant s ugges t s , wi t hout any bas i s i n pr oof , t hat Pl ai nt i f f has
t r es pas s ed and v andal i z ed Chel s ea Gar den s l eas ehol d.
uncompensated financial loss, but instead to suppress and dissuade Charles Evans
from bringing this action by needlessly driving up his costs.
The motion likely having been brought in bad faith and definitely having been
brought without cause, the motion should be denied. Alternatively, Plaintiffs action
being in the interest of the public trust, it should be exempt from bond. At the very least,
any injunction which enters can be made contingent upon a bond if Chelsea Gardens
proves sufficient grounds for one to be required.
Respectfully Submitted,
Charles Evans, Jr.
By_________________________
Keith R. Ainsworth, Esq.
Evans, Feldman & Ainsworth, LLC #101240
261 Bradley Street
P.O. Box 1694
New Haven, CT 06507-1694
(203)772-4900 / (203)782-1356 fax
krainsworth@EFandA-law.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing was deposited in the United States
mail, first-class, postage pre-paid this 28th day of August, 2015 and electronically filed
in the electronic filing system of the Superior Court in the above captioned matter and
served upon the parties electronically and/or by mail to those requesting such service
and addressed to:
David Hill & Associates, LLC, 180 Glastonbury Boulevard, Suite 202, Glastonbury, CT
06033 dhill@dhill-law.com
Block, Janey & Pascal, 138 Main Street, Norwich, CT 06360 rpascal@bjplawyers.com
Hasset & George, PC, 945 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, CT 06070
mcdonald@hgesq.com
________________________
Keith R. Ainsworth, Esq.
COURTUSEONLY
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
SUPERIOR COURT
CIVIL DIVISION
www.jud.ct.gov
*LANDUSE*
PresidingJudge,
LandUseLitigationDocket
95WashingtonStreet,
Hartford,CT06106
Instructions
1.Counselandselfrepresentedpartiesseekingtohaveacasereferredtothe
LandUseLitigationDocketmustsupplyalloftheinformationrequested
below.(Notsupplyingcompleteandaccurateinformationmayresultinthe
casenotbeingtransferred.)
2.Informationthatdoesnotfitonthisformshouldbeattachedonaseparate
sheet,numberedtocorrespondtothequestionsontheform.
3.AttorneysnotexcludedfromefilingmustefilethisformandselectLand
UseLitigationApplication"whennamingtheforminefiling.Attorneys
excludedfromefilingandselfrepresentedpartiesmustfiletheoriginalwith
theClerkinthejudicialdistrictinwhichthecaseispending.
LANDUSE
Note:AnyobjectiontothetransferofthiscasetotheLandUse
LitigationDocketmustbefiledwithin15calendardaysafterthe
filingofthisapplication.Attorneysnotexcludedfromefilingmust
select"ObjectiontoTransfertoLandUseLitigationDocket"when
namingtheobjectioninefiling.Attorneysexcludedfromefiling
andselfrepresentedpartiesmustfiletheobjectionwiththeClerk
inthejudicialdistrictinwhichthecaseispendingandmusttitleit
"ObjectiontoTransfertotheLandUseLitigationDocket.
ADA NOTICE
TheJudicialBranchoftheStateofConnecticutcomplieswiththeAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA).Ifyouneedareasonable
accommodationinaccordancewiththeADA,contactacourtclerkoranADAcontactpersonlistedatwww.jud.ct.gov/ADA.
Casename
Returndate
Docketnumber
Typeoflandusematter
Planning/Zoning(nonvariance)
AffordableHousingAppeals
EnvironmentalEnforcement
Inland/Wetlands
MiscellaneousLandUseLitigation
1.Status of Litigation:
a.AdministrativeAppeal:
BriefsFiled:
Yes
No
RecordFiled:
Yes
No
b.MiscellaneousLanduselitigation/environmentalenforcement:
Pleadings:
Open
Closed
DiscoveryComplete:
Yes
No
Yes
No
c.Trialdateassigned:
Ifyes,whenisthetrial?
EstimatedLengthoftrial:
2.ReasonswhythiscaseshouldbereferredtotheLandUseLitigationDocket:
3.DoesthetransfertotheLandUseLitigationDocketcreateanyhardshipsforthepartiesorattorneys?
Ifyes,explainthehardship.
Yes
4.DothepartiesorattorneysconsenttothetransfertotheLandUseLitigationDocket?
Yes
No
No
Don'tKnow
Certification
toallattorneys
Icertifythatacopyofthisdocumentwasmailedordeliveredelectronicallyornonelectronicallyon(date)
andselfrepresentedpartiesofrecordandthatwrittenconsentforelectronicdeliverywasreceivedfromallattorneysandselfrepresented
partiesreceivingelectronicdelivery.
Nameandaddressofeachpartyandattorneythatcopywasmailedordeliveredto*
*Ifnecessary,attachadditionalsheetorsheetswithnameandaddresswhichthecopywasmailedordeliveredto.
Printortypenameofpersonsigning
Signed(Signatureoffiler)
Datesigned
Telephonenumber
Mailingaddress(Number,street,town,stateandzipcode)
Print Form
Reset Form