DOCKET NO, DBD-17CV-6021 872

MILLER, JOSEPHINE S. SUPERIOR COURT

J,D. OF DANBURY

AT DANBURY

∨,

MAURER, E」iSABE丁H,
RODRIGUEZ, LORi JU」Y 14, 2018

TO: Honorable Dan Shaban, Presiding Judge

AMENDED MOT看ON FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS

Piain肺, Josephine S. MILLER this request to the Cierk of Superior Court fo「 the

「eIease, in acco「dance with the O「de「 Of the Court dated Juiy7, 2017 to pay to Atto「ney

Josephine S, M紺er the sum of $14,400 f「Om funds held in this matter, As 「easons

therefore, Plaint酔shows as fo=ows:

1. On July 7, 2O17 Judge Anthony Truglia issued a Judgement and O「de「 awarding

inte「 aIia, tO Plain冊A廿o「ney Josephine S, M川e「工he sum of $14, 40O f「om funds heId in

this inte「Pleader action. [Exhibit A]

2. On September 21, 2017 Plaint肝filed a motion for review of the trial court Order

l輔ng the automatic stay pending appea上

3, On November 8, 2017 the motion fo「 review was granted however the requested

reiief (i.e. 「eversai ofthe order胴ng ofthe automatic stay) was denied. [Exhibit B]
4. The「eafte「 on Feb「uary 21, 2018 the Coし而O「de「ed the reIease of funds to

Defendants.

5. The onIy amounts p「esentIy heId by the Clerk of Cou而is the $14,400 awarded to

Piaintiff.

6. On May =, 2018 and agaIn On June 4, 2018 PIaint肝fiIed motions fo「 reiease of

the funds that had been awa「ded to her bythe o「der ofJuly 7, 2O17.

7. Plaint肝「ecIaimed and ma「ked these motions as `〃take pape「S” on June 13 and Juiy

4. [Exhibit C]

8, An o「der denyIng Without prejudice Piaintiff’s motion was ente「ed with a date of

June 25, 2018. The basis fo「 the denial was fo「 “submission of evidence concemIng the

StatuS Ofthe appeaI and any appe=ate stay.”

9・ No evidence 「egarding the appeaI status o「 any stay was 「equi「ed f「om either of

the other pa軸es to the interpIeader action when the awarded funds were reIeased to

them.

10. 1n factan o「de「dated Feb「uary21, 2018was issued requl「lng PaymenttOAttomey

Mau「e「 and Lori Rodriguez within 8 days ofthe o「der. [DKT 136.05 and DKT 137,05]

11・ Finally, attaChed he「eto is the decision ofthe t「iaI cou巾te「minating the automatic

Stay. Notably’the te「mination of the stay affected a= parfies even though te「mination

motion was filed by Defendant Mau「er, See MOD at page 5, “The cou巾aiso finds that

neithe「 M紺e「 nor Rodriguez wilI su惟rirreparabIe harm ifthe se鮒ement proceeds ae paid

by the cie「k ofthe cou巾fo肋e parfeswh=e the appea=s pending.’’[Exhibit D]

2
 CER丁IFICA丁iON

This is to ce巾ify that the foregoing Motion to ReIease Funds was served via

eIectronic maiI upon the fo=owIng COunSeI of record and p「O Se Pa巾es on JuIy 14, 2018:

EIizabeth Mau「e「
Mau「e「 and Associates
871 Ethan A=en Highway
Suite 202
Ridgefield, C丁 O6877

Lo「i Rod「iguez
448 Park Avenue, Thi「d FIoo「
Bridgepo巾, CT O6604

/S/ JoseDhhe S. MWer
Josephine S. Mi=e「

4
 DBD-CV1 7-6021 872-S

JOSEPHINE MILLER FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT

Ptaint冊Appe=ant J.D. OF DANBURY
152 Dee「 Hi‖ Avenue, Suite 302
Danbury, CT O6810 AT DANBURY

V.

ELiZABETH MAURER.
Maurer & Associates, PC
871 Ethan A=en Highway
Suite 202
Ridgefield, CT O6877
De僑nd富n亡A即時帖き

LORI RODIRGUEZ
448 Park Avenue, Third Fioor
B「idgepoh, CT O6604 JU」Y7, 2017
Defe ndantAppe I lee

P惟rsent: Honorable Anthony D. Truglia, J「., Judge

JUDGMEN丁FILE

This action, by w亜and ∞mPla叫in the nature of an interpleade「 action,

Cla血ing damages, came tO this courf on Ma「ch 7J 2017J and thence fo late「 dates when

the pa舶es appeared and were at issue, aS On凧e. The parfies proceeded to’a hea血g

On J山y 6, 2017 when the Coし而thereupon made the fd川owing fir!dingミOf fact:

1・ Lo「i Rod卑ez entered into a valid retalne「 agreement with the law firm bf

Maure「 and Associates in September 2005 whieh obiigated her to compensate the

Maurer firm on a co軸gency fee basis of one拙rd of any惟畑飢rery against the Cfty of

` Bridgeport Housing Authorty and othe「 defendants pius o「dinary and customa「y costs

宙相和冊ga鮒on.

捗
吉江、幸十脅
 The Maurer firm commenced the action on Rod「iguez’s behalf, d輔gently and

P「Ofessiona=y 「epresented Rod「iguez in her claims against aii defendants in that action,

The Maurer firm added good vaIue to Rod「iguez’s cIaims by' inter alia

劇r鵬nCing the ac紬oれ, Successfu‖y defendjng an e如y mo章jon to djsmiss and d地e皿y

P「OSeCuting and responding to discovery requests in that action inciuding c9mPiling and

indexing Rodriguez’s medicaI 「ecords in support of he「 Claims.

2、 The Courf finds no evidence of misconduct or professional negligence by

anyone in the Mau「e「 iaw什m o「 in its handIing ofthe initial action. The Coし而finds no

reason why the retaine「 ag「eement.ノbetween Rod「iguez and the Maure「 Iaw fi「m should

not be enforced.

The Maure「 law firm claimed a iien on Rodriguez′s制e when it released the凧e to

Attorney MiIler. Although ca=ed a retaining lien in Atto「ney Maure「s cover Ietter言he

Co血finds that the Mau「er law firm is entit!ed to an equitable attomey’s charglng Iien on

紬e se糊ene融proceeds jn this cas]i l叩e ∞u†t紬ds that the雌弧Sho山d be enぬrced

and that the Mau「er law firm is entitled to reasonabie compensation fo「 its services

rende「ed.

3. The Court finds that Rod「iguez discha「ged the Mau「e「 fim in 2012 and

retained Attorney MiIIer to represent he「 interest -the「eafte「 with respect to her claims

against the Cfty of Bridgeport Housing Authority.

That Rod「iguez entered into a vaIid 「etainer ag「eement with Attomey

MilIe「 that p「OVided for compensation to Atto「ney M冊e十of one third of any 「ecove「y or

the time vaIue of Attomey M帥er’s services rende「ed on Rodriguez’s behaIf.

 The Co亜finds that this compensation agreement between atto「ney and

Client was supe「seded by a iate「 ag「eement between Rod「iguez and M帥e「 whe「eby

Mi一一e「 agreed to reduce he「 fee to 15 pe「cent of any recovery. The Co血hono「s the :

SuPe事Seding agreement between Rod「iguez and M…er.

WHEREUPON it is adjudged that the $96,000.00 now in deposit with the

CIe「k ofthe Danbury Supe「io「 Courf isltO be distributed‘as剛ows出e Co血awa「ds the

Plaint肝Atto「ney Josephine MilIe「 15 perce巾Of the g「oss amoLInt 「eCOVe「ed, that is

$128,151.89 equaiing $19,222,78 minus $4,822,00 aI「eady 「eoeived fo「 an additional

$14,400.78, Without costs,

The. Cou丘awa「ds the Mau「e「 firm 18 pe「cent of the recove「y o「

$23,067.34 and costs which the. Coulrt finds fai「, reaSOnable, CuStOmary and the

ordina「y costs of litigation; $296.20 for co血reporfe「 fees ; $6,523.70 fo「 deposition

fees; $1,124.60 in document 「et「ieva! costs;輔ng fees of $667.23;.$9,439.27 for legal

resca博h costs and $2i581.00 in exねordinary cop]小g c敵魂s for a tofal of $20,632.00血

COStS.

The totai amount to be distributed to the Maurer iaw firm is $43,699.34.

The balance of $37,899.88 is to be distributed to Lo「i Rodriguez,

BY THE COURT

Robin J. SmIth
Cle「k規ま唾婚 Deputy C輔9f Clefk
 APPELLA丁E COURT

STATE OF CONNEC丁ICUT

AC40654

JOSEPHINE S. MILLER

V,

ELIZABETH MAURER ET AL,

NOVEMBER 8, 2017
ORDER

THE MOTION OF THE PLAIN丁IFF-APPELLANT, FILED SEP丁EMBER 21, 2017,

FOR REVIEW, HAVING BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COUR丁, IT iS HEREBY

O R D E R E DTHAT REVIEW IS GRAN丁ED, BU丁THE RELIEF REQUES丁ED

丁HEREIN iS DENIED.

BY THE COUR丁,

ISI
RENE L, ROBER丁SON
ASSiSTAN丁CLERK-APPELLATE

NOTiCE SENT: Novembe「8, 2017

HON. ANTHONY D,丁RUGLIA, JR
COUNSEL OF RECORD
CLERK, SUPERIOR COURT, DBD CV17-6021872-S

172616

恥、しパ十重
Short Calendars Markings History Results https : //e制e. eservices j ud. ct. gov/S CM/S CMH i storyResults. aspx?Doc …

E-SenIices Home A慣O「ney/Fim: JOSEPHINE SMAししS MILLER (422896)E-MaiI: jmilierIaw@sbcgIobai・net Logout

E-Services inbox (419)

Sho巾CaIendars Markings History
New Search
Superior Court E-FiIing ResuIts
Civii/Fami!y
fo「 JOSEPHINE SMALLS Ml」LER (422896) as of 7/9/2018
Housing
Smaii CIaims
Docket Number: DBD"CV"17"6021872"S
Records: 4
E"FiIe a New Case
CaI。-
とれtlγ
E-FiIe on an Docket Number Location謹皇 Seq , Motion/ Objection
No。
Existing Case N○○
By Docket Number
DBD-CV-17-6021872-S DanburyJD May Ol, 2017 12-018 107,00 MOTION FOR
By Pa巾I Name
I NTERLOCUTO RY
」ist My Cases 〕UDGMENT OF
IN丁ERPLEADER PB 23-44

Court Events (Defendant)

By Date
By Juris Number Ma rking Ma「kingDate lMa rked 8y
By Docket Number 丁a pa ke pe「S Ap「25,ま017 0ま:ま 3:56 PM by MAURた R&AS SOC重A丁とS pC(4之0112)

Short Calenda「s
MILLER, DBDty-17-6021872-S DanburyJD Feb 20, 2018 12-019 137,00 MOl￨ON FORORDER
Ma「kings Ent「y
JOSEP口INE (Defendant)
Sv.
My Shoh Calendars MAURER,
By Cou巾Locatioれ田 E LI ZABE「H
Et AI
Ca看endar Notices固

Marking Date / Marked By

My Shopping Cart (0) Feb 13, 2018 04:20こ53 PM by MAURER &ASSOCI/I鵬S PC (420112)
My E-Fiied ltems

MILLER, DBD-CV-17-6021872-S DanburyJD Jun 18, 2018 12-028 142.00 MOTION FOR ORDER
Pending JOSEPHINE (PIaintiff)
ForecIosure SaIes園 Sv.
MAURER,
Search By P「ope「ty Add「ess E LIZABETH
Et AI

Ma「king Date / Marked Bγ

Jun 13, 2018 01:58:15 PM bγ JOSEpHINE SMÅししS MILLER (422896)

M ILLER, DBDrW-17-6021872-S DanburyJD JuI O9, 2018 12-021 142.00 MOTION FOR ORDER

JOSEPHINE (P廟nt晴)
Sv.
MAURER,
E LIZAB日-H
Et Ai

Marking Date / Marked By

〕ui O4, 2018 09:22:11 AM by JOS要PHINE SMAししS MIししER (422896)

Copyri9ht ◎ 201 8, State of ConnectiCUt Judicial Branch

亡羊」上古し
l ofl 7/9/2018, 10:09 PM
 A.C. NO.: 40654
DOCKET NO,: DBD-CV. 1 7_602] 872_S )  SUPER工OR COURT

JOSEPHINE MILLER )  JUDICIAL DISTRTCT OF

)  DÅNBURY

ELIZABETH MAURER, ET AL. )  SEPTEMBER 12, 2017

郎朝。T蹴鞠鰹濫緒認諾艶聞S冒AY
ProceduraI and FactuaI Background

The plainti髄; Josephi11e Mi=er, is an attorney lio㊤章lSed to practice in Connecticut. Eli狐beth Maurer,

One Of the defendants, is also an attomey licensed to practice in Connecticut. Both represented Lori

Rodriguez, the other defendar吋With her emp】oyment discrimination claims against the Bridgeport Housing

Authorib′・ Rodriguez was initially represented by Maurer, Whose law f中m commenced a cause ofaction in

the United States Dist壷t Co血on her bchalf claimlng Viofation§ Of her civil rights and enployme-1t

discrimination by representatives of the City of Bridgeport. A節er several years of litigation before the

Di§trict Court, Rodriguez terminated her attomey-Client re融onship with Maurer & Associates (Maurer,s

firm) and retained M狙er to prosecute her causes of action, The Di§trict Court dismissed all ofRodriguez’

C輝ms; M肌er then filed a new case against the Cdy of Bridgepo巾in Superior Court, a嶋gmg Claims l

identical to those asse鵬d in the Distl`ict Cour[ ca§e" Rodriguez eventually堕reed to se鵬a11 ofthe cIaims

in the Superior Co調case jn return for a oneiime payment of$128,151.98. That sum was paid to Miller,

as trustee for Rodriguez’earlier thi§ year. Maureris frm asselted a craim for lega=fee叩nd costs against the

amount recovered’Cla血ng that it had a valid and enforceable contingency fee arrangement with Rodriguez

and was en軸ed to be paid from the settleinent proceeds. Miller and Rodriguez disputed Maurer’s claim,

P「marily on the grounds血at Maurer had mishandled Rodriguez’claims and was therefore not entitled to

Payment for her鯛rm’s services. Miller also argued that she wa§ entitled to a軸one-th証d o弛e se境lement

ProCeeds for her services on Rodriguez, beh掘OれOr ab。ut March 2, 2017, Miller paid to the court the

Nodce Sent Septen心er 13, 2017

Counsel of Record
Cle互S岬erior Co血
DBD.CV.1 7・602 1 872-S
Hon. Anthony D. T山gua., Jr..

hk
巨十㌦も、斗
 balal-Ce Ofthe §ettlement amount remaining after preliminary disbursemel-tS tO herse】fand Rodriguez, I and

COmmenCed this interpleader action pursuant to General Statutes § 52-484.2

On Apri] 17, 2017, M糾rer, Oll bchalf of her鉦m, filed a motion for interlocutory judgment of

interpleader (親07) in accordance with Practice Book § 23-44,3 and a statement of clalm (親08). After a

hearing on the motion, the court found that也ere was a bona fide dispute as to the allocation ofthe settlement

PrOCeeds and entered an interlocutoryjudgment ofinterpleader (親07.05). The couft ordered all parties to

則e thei一・ Statements Ofclaim by June 16, 2017 and §Cheduled a宙al on the merits for July 6, 2017.

A】l pa雨es appeared at trial and were heard. A蹄er two days oftria!, the ∞tlrt叩nd that Rodrig鵬Z

had entered into valid and enforceable fee agreements with both Miller’s and Maurer’s fims. Rodriguez had

agreed to pay Maurer,§軸m one-third ofany rcoove均′, Plus ordinary and customary l itigati on expenses, Pr10r

to commencmg the District Court case. After discharging Maurer,s鰯m, Rodriguez also agreed to pay

M批er, at M班er’s election’either her hourly m亡e or one-third of any recovery. Rodriguez and MiIler,

h o涌ever’later agreed to a superseding fee arl.angement Whereby M組er agreed to accept a flat fee of $ 1 5,000

for her §e「Vices.

The coulrt found '一O basis upon which to ∞nClude that Maurer,s firm did not repre§ent Rodriguez

diligently, ethically, and competently at all times in the Dist南Cout case. The courtis jndgment awarded

Miller the balance due to her pursuant to her superseding fee agreement ($15,000 1ess $4,822 already

received, Or $14,400.78) and aya「ded Maurer,s firm the balance ofone謝rd ofthe total amount recovered,

Which this court calculated as eighteen percent of $1 28, 1 5 l.98, Or $23,067.34. This coult also awarded

Maurel.’s firm its reasonable costs of litigatn incurred on Rodiguez’behalf of $20,632, for a tota- award

l Miller disbursed $27,329 to Rodriguez and $4,822 to herselfbefore bringing this interp'eader actionタ

leaving $96,000 to be distributed by the courf in the present action.

2 General Statutes § 52"484 provides in relevant part:く・Whenever any person has, Or is a】】eged to have, any

mOney Or Other property in his possession `which j§ Claimed by two or more person§, either he, Or any Ofthe persons
Claiming鵬same・ may bring a complaint in equit)′, jn the nature ofa bi]1 of interpleader, tO any COurt which by -aw

has equitab】e jurisdictioo ofthe parties and amount in controversy, making all persons parties who clai関to be
entitled to or jnterested jn §uch money or other property.言〕

J practice Book § 23"44 provides in relevant part門No融on the me雨s ofan interpleader action s軸be

had unt岬) an interlocutolγjudgment ofint叩leader shall have been enteredi and (2) a11 defendants sha11 havc蘭ed

Statements Ofclaim, been defaulted or別ed朋ivers, ,

2
 to Maurer’s firm of$43,699.34. This court ordered the鳩mained balance of$37,899.88 to be distrjbuted to

Rodrig鵬z.

Miller揮ied a timeIy appeal ofthe court’s紬aljudgment on July 1 8, 2017. Maurer filed a motion

for termjnation ofthe appellate stay oll August l, 2017, In accordance with Practice Book § 61-1 1 (d), this

CO巾he!d a hearing on the motion on August 21, 2017. Neither Miller nor Rodriguez filed a written

O匝Ction to the motion to terminate stay, although both appeared and argued in opposition to the motion at

theh鎗ring.

Maurer first argues that the due administration ofjustice il置this case requires the lifting of the st坤′

because the =ke航ood ofsuc∞ss on appeal is Iow' Second, Maurer argue§ that Miller has no standing to

appeal the court’s allocation ofthe se劇ement proceeds because any erl.Or in the court’s ruling would accrue

to Rodriguez, nOt MilIer・ Maurer argues that ``no possib!e Appe順e [Courq decision based on the issues

raised [in Mjller’s appeal] would result in an increase in [her] recovery under her feie agreement and

Subsequent modification.,, Third, Maurer fu軸er argueS that M紺er has no standing to challenge the courtis

det餅mination of whether Maurer represented Rodriguez properly in the federal co血action. Miller’s

Pre規inarγ statement of issue§ queStions whether this court committed reversible error in蝕ding that

Maurer and her firmくくdilige佃y and et航cally handled di§COVery,宜Rodriguez’Distl煽Ctourt case. For

these reasons, Maurer argues, MilIe‘・ is not aggrieved by this coutt’§ decision and has no standing to bring

the present appeal・

Maurer next argue§ th如Miller,s appeal seeks to have the Appellate Co血ove血rn this court’s

dete鮒ination of the reasonableness of Maurer’s firm’s fees and costs, MiIler, however, did not raise軸s

issue at trial; Therefore・ Maurer argues’血is claim has n。t been pre§erVed for appealタCiting Pmct王ce Book

§ 60-5.4 Miller,s appeaI, Maurer argues串s a low likelihood of success and the automatic stay should be

ま漁ed.

In opposition to the motion to terminate the stay’Miller restated at oral argument her cIaim that this

COurt er融in awarding her the balance ofa $ 1 5’000 fee beca鵬Miller only agreed to that fee arrangement

4 pr諭ee Book § 60-5 provides in relevant part; “The court §軸not be bound to consider a ciaim m】es§ it

WaS distinctly raised at the trial or arose subsequent to the trial….・・

3
l

On the understanding tI融Maurer did not intend to seek payment Ofher fees and co§t§ from the settlement.

Miller a!so argues that it is not appropriate for the court teminate the stay in軸s appeal since there is

another appeal now pending by Rodriguez.

Dまscu§Sio職

Under Comectiout law, an apPeal stays enforcene証of ajudgme調or cout order, Pl.actice Book

§ 6l-1 1 (a), gOVeming stays of execution in no]一Criminal cases, PrOVides in relevaut part: `くExcept where

Othe読se provided by statute or other law, ProCeeding§ to enforce or cany out thejudgment or order shall

be automatically stayed u11til the time to親e an appeal has expired. Ifan appcal is filed, SuCh proceedings

Sha= be stayed until the froaI determination ofthe cause….う, Practice Book § 6日1 (d) provide§ in relevant

Part:くくI蝕ejudge whd tried the case is ofthe opinion that (1) an extension to appeal is sought, Or the appea】

is鍋ed’Only fdr deky or (2) the due administration ofjustice so requires証ejudge may at any time, uPOn

motion or sua sponte? Order that the stay be telminated.. ∴,

In Gr娩n fねやilal v. Co棚短ion on助やiねs & He融h Care, 196 Conn. 45l, 458-59, 493 A.2d

229 (1 985) our Supreme Court upheld the trial court,s ・`balancing ofthe equities” when detemining wllether

the due administration ofjustice requires ter▲ninating the stay in a particular case. In Gr紡均the Cout

quoted with approval the federal standard for balancing the eq融es.くくThe federal standard foouses upon ( 1 )

the Ijke】ihood th9t the appe】lant will prevail; Q) the irreparabilfty ofthe i可vry to be su節ered from immediate

implementation ofthe agency ordel・; (3) the effect ofa stay upon other parties to血e proceeding; and (4) the

Public interest invoIved.,, Id.’456.

The couJrt agreeS W地h Maurer that Mil]er’s likelihood ofsuccess on appeal i§ nOt high. The coII11

agrees that Miller does not have standing to cha=enge this court’s detel.mination of whether Maurer

represented Rodriguez properly and the reasonableness ofMaurer’s縄m,s fee§ and co§tS. Moreover, eVen

if Mijler does have §tanding to appea=ssues relating s9lely to the reasonableness of the fees and costs

awarded to Maurer’§ firm’Miller has glVen the court no legal or factual basis upon which to conclude that

the courtis fhotual findings or its orders relating to distribution of the settlement proceeds were cIearly

The coult also believes that Mil]er則ed this appeal solely for purposes of delay' “An action is

frivoIous ifthe client desires to have the acl:ion taken prlma「ily for 。le PurPOSe Of haras§lng Or maliciously

4
 llqu・mg a PersOn Or ifthe lawyer is unable either to make a g。Od faith argument o両he merits ofthe action

taken or to suppor=he action taken by a good餌h argument for an extension’mOdifroation or reversal of

existing Iaw.’’(Internal quotation marks omitted.)胸ekF脇Del’elapmen寝LC v. Benevol鋤tParhl糾均

Superior Cou巾jndicial di§tl.ict ofFa繭eld, DocketNo. CV-1 0・4033543-S (October l O, 20 14,部mme7弓),

Citing r±#aCO,励c. v, GoIcz7巧206 Com, 454,-464, 538 A.2d lO17 (1988). As stated earlier, Other than

repeating her argument that the court erred in l繭ting her fee to 15 percent of the scttlement proceeds,

b∞auSe that agreement was predicated on her beliefthat Maurer’s firm would not be a§Serting a claim for

its fなおand costs from the same proceeds, Miller has provided the court w紀u no othむreasons why the stay

ShouId not be l脆ed・く`In the consideration of applications for s崎y orders,血e applicant must make a strong

Showing ofthe probabilky of捌cceeding on the merits of its appeal, Ofthe probabilfty ofirreparable irg河ny,

and of the prQbabilfty that the stay order will not be harm蝕to the public intere§t Or to Other parties.”

脇ねrbuyfJZxp融Iv. Cbm融ssion on助や海応&左脇娩Cc吟30 Conn・ Supp. 352〕 354-55’316 A・2d 787

(1 974). Miller has not carried her burden ofproofa§ tO her probability of success on appeal.

The couIt aIso frods that neither Miller nor Rodriguez will su餓証rreparab]e hann ifthe settlement

Pro喧eeds are paid by the clerk ofthe co調to the parties while the appeal is pending. This case invoIves the

interpretation ofthe parties, respective retainer and fee agreements and a detemination ofthe rea§Onablene§S

OfMi‖er’s and Maurer,s claims for fees and costs. Generally speaking, mere刑uries i櫨terms of money,

time and energy necessa]▼ily expended in absence ofa stry do not form a basis for a conclusion ofirreparable

injury.’’rmerb卿′助髄妨aL supra, 30 Com. Supp. 3 55. “To demonstrate irreparable ham the moving party

must identify a noncompen§able ir寄ury for which there is no legal measure ofdamages, Or nOne that can be

detemined with a su餓cient degree ofcertairty.... Thus, mOnetary los§eS Wi】l genera11y not be considered

jrreparab】e … ・ The possib叫y that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief wi冊e available at a

later date, in the ordinary course oflitigation, Weighs heavily against a claim of ineparable harm,,, (Citation

Omitted.) Mあk馬偏Oevel印men寝LC v. Be杯evolent Partne埼, LP, SuPra, Superior Couri, Docket No. CV-

1 0 4033543-S; See also BPC Ccapi出座fun呼emenl I LLC v,垂2Pea坊om PJ‘Obate, Superior Court, judicial

district of Fairfield’Docket No・ CV-14-6040845-S (May 1 6, 2014,部mmeJ弓:); Br雌やort v. D卸qf

めcial虎7所ces.・ Superior Coult judicial dis由ct ofFairfrold, Docket No. CV-00-0378995-S (June 4, 2001,

劇物jc4 J)・ Tlle StatuS quO・ in o鵬r words, COuld be quickly and easily l.eStOred by the payment ofmoney

5
 in the event ofa ]・eV針SaI of the court.sjudgment and entry of dif経rent order§, The co血further finds that

there i§ nO Public interestthat wou]d be adversely a飾ected by a li‰g ofthe stay’Or Other parties that would

be adversely a微弱ed by termination ofthe s申y.

Balancing the equrtleS in the present casei the court weighs the possible ham to Rodriguez and

MiIler ifthe stay is l脆ed and the lack of a possible public interest that would be adversely a熊加ed, against

(l ) the likel上hood ofMiller’s success on the merits and (2) the co血,s beliefthat the appea] was filed solely

for pu申oses of delay. The court finds that none ofthe factors weigh in fかvor of maintaining the stay.

Therefore, these oonsiderations require termina血g the stay in thi8 Oase Without delay.

Conclusまo皿

After a hearing held on the motion to terminate’the appellate stay in the above-referenced actions)

the co血finds that due administration ofjustice鳩qulreS l触ng the stay of execution. Maurer’s motion for

terminati°n Ofthe appe11ate stry in the abov頃eferenced action is granted.5 The clerk ofthe co面ls orde融

to disburse the settleme11t PrOCeeds held on deposit in accordance with血e court’s July 7, 20 1 7 judgment.

S○ ○rdered,

5 The court is aware that Rodriguez has剛ed a second appeaI ofthe court’sjudgment (Docket No. AC

40761). Before the court is Maurer,s motion to teminate the stay in DocketNo. AC 40654; the court,s ruling
a熊戒S On]y the stay in Docket No. 40654.