Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/103494821/Derby-Appeal
Timestamp: 2016-10-27 18:53:52
Document Index: 329948964

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 195', '§1983', '§ 52', '§1961']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicCase: 12-2993Document: 10
Counsel’s Name:
Counsel’s Name: Address: Telephone No.: Fax No.: E-mail:
ADDENDUM “A”: COUNSEL MUST ATTACH TO THIS FORM: (1) A BRIEF, BUT NOT PERFUNCTORY, DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE ACTION; (2) THE RESULT BELOW; (3) A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND A CURRENT COPY OF THE LOWER COURT DOCKET SHEET; AND (4) A COPY OF ALL RELEVANT OPINIONS/ORDERS FORMING THE BASIS FOR THIS APPEAL, INCLUDING TRANSCRIPTS OF ORDERS ISSUED FROM THE BENCH OR IN CHAMBERS. ADDENDUM “B”: COUNSEL MUST ATTACH TO THIS FORM A LIST OF THE ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL, AS WELL AS THE APPLICABLE APPELLATE STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR EACH PROPOSED ISSUE. PART A: JURISDICTION 1. Federal Jurisdiction 9 9 U.S. a party Federal question (U.S. not a party) 9 Diversity 9 Other (specify): 9 9 Final Decision Interlocutory Decision Appealable As of Right 2. Appellate Jurisdiction 9 Order Certified by District Judge (i.e., Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)) Other (specify):
1. Stage of Proceedings 9 9 9 Pre-trial During trial After trial 2. Type of Judgment/Order Appealed 9 Default judgment 9 Dismissal/FRCP 12(b)(1) lack of subj. matter juris. 9 Dismissal/FRCP 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim 9 Dismissal/28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) frivolous complaint 9 Dismissal/28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) other dismissal 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
If yes, state whether 9 “A,” or 9 “B,” or 9 both are applicable, and provide in the spaces below the following information on the other action(s):
DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE The plaintiffs brought this action claiming that the defendants intentionally discriminated against them based upon the status of persons they represented and/or would be providing housing to as persons with disabilities and for the defendants’ purported failure to grant the plaintiffs a reasonable accommodation under any of the legal theories advanced by the plaintiffs.
According to the plaintiffs, the defendants misinterpreted and/or misapplied the City of Derby zoning regulation § 195-87 (F) and classified their Derby properties as non-conforming uses. The plaintiffs claim that, because of this misinterpretation and/or misapplication, their requests for certificates of zoning were impermissibly/improperly denied. After a bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their (1) Federal Fair Housing Act claim, (2) Americans With Disabilities Act claim, (3) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act claim, and (4) Connecticut Fair Housing Act claim, finding that the defendants had engaged in intentional discrimination. The plaintiffs initially brought a Section 1983 Equal Protection claim in addition to their statutory claims. However, because the plaintiffs stipulated at the outset of trial that the case was primarily a statutory case and the §1983 Equal Protection claim afforded the plaintiffs no additional relief, the Court did not reach the question of whether the defendants violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorney Fees on August 11, 2011, with accompanying affidavits from Attorney David Rosen, Attorney Joseph ADDENDUM “A”
Garrison, Attorney Amy Eppler-Epstein, Attorney Shelley White, and Attorney Margaret Mason. The defendants filed an objection to the plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees on September 30, 2011. The plaintiffs replied to the defendants’ Objection to the Motion for Attorney Fees on October 7, 2011. On October 7, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees with accompanying affidavits from Attorney Rosen and Attorney White. The defendants objected to the plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees on October 14, 2011, and responded to the plaintiffs’ Reply to the defendants’ Objection to the Motion for Attorney Fees on October 14, 2011. The plaintiffs replied to the defendants’ Objection to the Supplemental Motion for Attorney fees on October 19, 2011. The defendants filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition of the Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees on February 16, 2012. The plaintiffs responded on February 23, 2012. In addition, the plaintiffs filed a second Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees on February 23, 2012. On March 30, 2012, the Trial Court issued an order granting the plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees dated August 11, 2011, and the two Supplemental ADDENDUM “A”
Motions for Attorney Fees. In their three motions, the plaintiffs had sought attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $961,161.17. The Trial Court awarded the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $918,620.17, which included plaintiffs’ costs in the amount of $17,148.67. Specifically, the Trial Court found that a reasonable rate for Attorney Rosen in this action was $485.00 per hour. The Trial Court also found that reasonable rates for Attorney White and Attorney Eppler-Epstein were $400.00 per hour and $350.00 per hour, respectively. In addition, the Court found that three percent of Attorney Rosen’s total billing hours were to be deducted for vague billing entries. Further, 20 hours were to be deducted from Attorney Eppler-Epstein’s total billing hours. Finally, the Court concluded that plaintiffs’ counsels’ billing hours were not excessive. However, the Court did conclude that five percent of Attorney White’s billing hours, 32.5 hours, would be deducted because of duplicity. In addition, on April 3, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-192a. On April 4, 2012, the Honorable Tucker L. Melancon referred the plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest to the Honorable Holly B. Fitzsimmons on ADDENDUM “A”
April 4, 2012. On May 4, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend/Correct their Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest filed on April 3, 2012 in order to incorporate the Court’s Order on Motion for Attorney Fees issued on March 30, 2012. The defendants filed their first Response to the plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct their Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest on May 14, 2012. The plaintiffs filed their Reply to the defendants’ Response to the plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct their Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest on May 15, 2012. On May 31, 2012, the Honorable Tucker L. Melancon issued another Order referring the plainiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct their Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest to The Honorable Holly B. Fitzsimmons. On June 1, 2012, the Honorable Holly B. Fitzsimmons granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Prejudgment Interest. Specifically, Judge Fitzsimmons awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,120,944.82 for the time period of August 24, 2006 to March 30, 2012. As such, an amended final judgment in the amount of $2,789,613.42 was entered on July 9, 2012. Also, on June 1, 2012, Judge Fitzsimmons issued another order terminating the plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend/Correct their Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest. ADDENDUM “A”
Finally, on July 9, 2012, the Honorable Tucker L. Melancon issued an Amended Judgment. Judge Melancon ordered: 1. Attorney fees and costs are awarded to the plaintiffs in the total amount of $918,620.17; 2. Prejudgment interest in the total sum of $1,120,944.82 awarded to the plaintiffs, with interest at a rate of 12 percent per annum from August 24, 2006 until March 30, 2012; 3. The total amount awarded to plaintiffs is $2,789,613.42, broken down as follows: a. Damages of $676,279.65 to Valley Housing Limited Partnership and Home Development, Inc.; b. Damages of $73,768.78 to Home Operations Management Enterprises, Inc.; c. Attorney fees of $918,620.17; and d. Interest of $1,120,944.82 for the period of August 24, 2006 to March 30, 2012. 4. Sums awarded for attorney fees and prejudgment interest are allocated pro rata; and 5. Post-judgment interest shall accrue on the sum of $2,789,613.42 from March 31, 2012 until paid at the rate provided for by Title 28, United States Code, §1961.
CERTIFICATION This is to certify that on AUGUST 1, 2012, a copy of the foregoing DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System. Amy Eppler-Epstein, Esquire Shelley A. White, Esquire James Bhandary-Alexander, Esquire New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc. 425 State Street New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 946-4811 (Tel.) (203) 498-9271 (Fax) aeppler-epstein@nhlegal.org swhite@nhlegal.org jbhandary-alexander@nhlegal.org David N. Rosen, Esquire David Rosen Associates, P.C. 400 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 787-3513 (Tel.) (203) 789-1605 (Fax) drosen@davidrosenlaw.com
Applicable Standard of Appellate Review. The Second Circuit reviews a “district court's findings of fact after a bench trial for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” Arch Ins. Co. v. Precision Stone, Inc., 584 F.3d 33, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2009)(citing, Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2008)).
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN NOT PERMITTING THE DEFENDANTS TO SET OFF FROM THE PLAINTIFFS’ JUDGMENT MONIES THE PLAINTIFFS RECEIVED FROM THE CONNECTICUT HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY.
Applicable Standard of Appellate Review. The Second Circuit reviews a “district court's findings of fact after a bench trial for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” Arch Ins. Co. v. Precision Stone, Inc., 584 F.3d 33, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2009)(citing, Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2008)). 4. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THE ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR ATTORNEY DAVID ROSEN AND ATTORNEY AMY-EPPLER-EPSTEIN.
Applicable Standard of Appellate Review. The Second Circuit reviews a district court’s award of attorney’s fees, including the reasonable number of billable hours, for abuse of discretion. See Fabotko v. Clinton County of New York, 433 F.3d 204, 208 (ed Cir. 2005); Leblanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748, 757 (2d Cir. 1998); Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 109 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1997); Sands v. Runyon, 28 F.3d 1323, 1333 (2d Cir. 1994). 5. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ITS INITIAL DECISION TO AWARD PREJUDGMENT INTEREST TO THE PLAINTIFFS, AND THEREAFTER AS TO THE SCOPE OF THE PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AWARD.
Applicable Standard of Appellate Review. Whether prejudgment is allowed under law in a given case is an issue of law that the Second Circuit will review de novo. Arch Ins. Co. v. Precision Stone, Inc., 584 F.3d 33, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2009)(citing, Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 533 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2008))(The Second Circuit reviews a “district court's findings of fact after a bench trial for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.”) If allowed under law, the decision whether to grant prejudgment interest and the rate used if such interest is granted are matters confided to the district court's broad discretion, and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.” Novella v. Westchester County, 661 F.3d 128, 150 (2d Cir. 2011)(citing, Endico Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Group/Factoring, Inc., 67 F.3d 1063, 1071–72 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Slupinski v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 554 F.3d 38, 53–55 (2d Cir.2009); Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Milken, 17 F.3d 608, 613–15 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 873, 115 S.Ct. 198, 130 L.Ed.2d 130 (1994)). DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, CITY OF DERBY and DAVID KOPJANSKI, Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Official, in his official capacity
/s/ Thomas R. Gerarde Thomas R. Gerarde Howd & Ludorf, LLC 65 Wethersfield Avenue Hartford, CT 06110 Phone: (860) 249-1361 Fax: (860) 249-7665 E-Mail: tgerarde@hl-law.com ADDENDUM “B”
CERTIFICATION This is to certify that on AUGUST 1, 2012, a copy of the foregoing ISSUES DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS PROPOSE TO RAISE ON APPEAL was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System. Amy Eppler-Epstein, Esquire Shelley A. White, Esquire James Bhandary-Alexander, Esquire New Haven Legal Assistance Assoc. 425 State Street New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 946-4811 (Tel.) (203) 498-9271 (Fax) aeppler-epstein@nhlegal.org swhite@nhlegal.org jbhandary-alexander@nhlegal.org David N. Rosen, Esquire David Rosen Associates, P.C. 400 Orange Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 787-3513 (Tel.) (203) 789-1605 (Fax) drosen@davidrosenlaw.com
Derby AppealUploaded by The Valley IndyMotion In United States LawAppealAttorney's FeePlaintiffCourt2.4K viewsDownloadEmbedSee MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content
Documents similar to Derby AppealVargas et al v. Pfizer Inc. et al - Document No. 180Pinchbeck v. Town of Windham, CUMap-08-32 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2009)James v. Aurora Public, 10th Cir. (2003)Manildra Milling Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc. (Now O.M.I. Holdings, Inc.) v. Henkel Corporation and Henkel of America, Inc., Third-Party and John Thomas Honan, Counterclaim Manildra Milling Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc. (Now O.M.I. Holdings, Inc.) v. Henkel Corporation and Henkel of America, Inc., Third-Party and John Thomas Honan, Counterclaim, 22 F.3d 1105, 3rd Cir. (1994)CV11-03628-3122431 8 28 12 Order Denying Coughlin's Motion Regarding Award of Attorney's Feesjbig2lossy OcrtPayne v. Turley, 10th Cir. (2014)Digests 26Karnes v. SCI Colorado Funeral, 10th Cir. (1998)Vesco v. Snedecker, 10th Cir. (2003)Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma PauperisBrandon Franklin Miller, a Minor, by and Through His Parents and Next Friends, Mary Ann Miller and Randall Miller v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., a New York Corporation, Lederle Laboratories Division, American Cyanamid Company, a Maine Corporation Connaught Laboratories, Inc., a Pasteur Merieux Company, a Delaware Corporation and Sclavo, S.P.A., an Italian Corporation, 43 F.3d 1483, 10th Cir. (1994)Vanguard Environmental, Inc. v. Kerin, 528 F.3d 756, 10th Cir. (2008)16 Fair empl.prac.cas. 815, 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,382 John Young v. Kerr Industries, Inc. A/K/A Kerr Bleaching and Finishing Works, Inc., 540 F.2d 755, 4th Cir. (1976)Graham v. Van Dycke et al - Document No. 80Cestnik v. Federal Bureau of, 10th Cir. (2003)United States v. Gomez, 70 U.S. 752 (1866)Joseph Locurto v. Howard Safir, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department, the City of New York and Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York, Jonathan Walters v. Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York, Thomas Von Essen, Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York, and the City of New York, Robert Steiner v. Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of the City of New York, Thomas Von-Essen, Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department, the City of New York, 264 F.3d 154, 2d Cir. (2001)Doc 733United States v. Guillermo Gonzalez A/K/A "Guillie", 166 F.3d 349, 10th Cir. (1998)Dismissal of the Complaint Not Case Does Not Result to the Dismissal of Counterclaim Which May Be Prosecuted in the Same ActionBar Exam QuestionsUnited States v. Mack Brooks, 4th Cir. (2015)De Los Reyes vs SandigangbayanUnited States v. Billy Joe Pinter, 971 F.2d 554, 10th Cir. (1992)Louis L. Frydman v. Department of Justice, 57 F.3d 1080, 10th Cir. (1995)Proposed Record on Appeal-pre Stipulation PDFDaly v. People of the United, 10th Cir. (2004)#26 Def Motion to Extend Page Limits for ReplyLathrop, Shea & Co. v. INTERIOR CONSTR'N CO., 215 U.S. 246 (1909)United States v. Bey, 10th Cir. (2004)Books similar to Derby AppealThe Pursuit of Racial and Ethnic Equality in American Public SchoolsADR and the CourtsThe Administration of Civil Justice in England and WalesFruit of The Poison TreeConfessions of a Criminal LawyerBlack Votes CountThe Olympic RecordSenator Sam Ervin, Last of the Founding FathersInside China's Legal SystemLong George AlleyProperty RitesYou Be the JudgeBreaking InLawBlessed ExperiencesTent CityThe Straight StateCivil Rights UnionismThe Mother CourtYale Law JournalEducational Freedom in Urban AmericaLaughing WhitefishAmerican LegendsThe Prometheus PostThe American Freedoms PrimerNelson MandelaThe Queen Against Karl MullenBeneath the Cherry TreeLegally WastedDocuments about CourtJudge Status Conference Order Jane Doe. V TrumpDoe Vs. Trump - Judge's OrderAmended Complaint Filed 9/30/2016 Doe v. Trump et al refiled complaint 9/30/16iPhone Touch Screen - Amended Complaint [CONFORMED COPY]2016-04-18 Cheri Jacobus Lawsuit Against Trump and LewandowskiBundy wants govt to ID informants179125570172Part III Philippines' Civil Service Professional ReviewerRNC PlatformMejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfPennie v. Soros et al Amended Complaint09-20-2016 ECF 1305 USA v SHAWNA COX - Notice That the U.S. Attorneys' Office Has Been Caught Coaching WitnessesThe Pro-Manager Agreement (With Pro-Artist Commentary)Transcript of hearing for Timothy Da'Shaun TaylorLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdf20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitSEC v. CoopermanCavanaugh v BarteltBenefits & PrivilegesTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesStandard Form of Agreement for Design ServicesPistorius Final JudgmentState-by-State Laws Report 2015Chief Justice Roy Moore's orderLawsuit against Hillary ClintonPECB bill - SenateAmended Levaquin complaint Palantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitDocuments about PlaintiffTiffany Doe Declaration2016-04-18 Cheri Jacobus Lawsuit Against Trump and LewandowskiSaudi Lawsuit179125570172Mejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfPennie v. Soros et al Amended ComplaintLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdf20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesLawsuit against Hillary ClintonAmended Levaquin complaint Palantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoGoguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtBenzies v RockstarVW Diesel caseZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintFresh Guidelines on Quashing of Proceedings of a Non-compoundable Offence on the Basis of Settlement Between the PartiesGhomeshi rulingClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmMumford Emergency MotionHaloSongs Inc v SheeranGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0Carlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintDocuments about AppealLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdfPistorius Final JudgmentState-by-State Laws Report 2015Chief Justice Roy Moore's orderPokemon Go lawsuitSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoSundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra & ANR.Ross Ulbricht Sentencing Fresh Guidelines on Quashing of Proceedings of a Non-compoundable Offence on the Basis of Settlement Between the PartiesSc Verdict on Article 377D-M-R- (BIA June 9, 2015)Brief of Amici Curiae 212 Songwriters, Composers, Musicians, And Produce...2016oncj35Silk Road Appeal BriefFinal Judgment in al Bashir caseSC Arunchal - Judgment copyB.N. Klein Amicus BriefFraudulent Conveyance Quiet Title PacketSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtVoisine v. United StatesGrace Estrellado, A089 056 676 (BIA Nov. 19, 2014)REBA v. NREIS DecisionUber SettlementKaty Faust Amicus BriefsUS v Chino Anthrax Plea-C.martinezOscar Pistorius trialDOTC Joint Administrative Order 2014-01 setting higher fines for traffic violationsJuan Lopez-Lopez, A205 920 665 (BIA Dec. 11, 2014)Gov't Response to AppleDocuments about Motion In United States LawBundy wants govt to ID informantsCavanaugh v BarteltSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoVW Diesel caseZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintMumford Emergency MotionBrief of Amici Curiae 212 Songwriters, Composers, Musicians, And Produce...I am an attorney so I decided to sue my lender...Silk Road Appeal BriefRyan Bundy Mistrial MotionDearie v. Gannon2-16-16 Doc 4 - U.S.A. v CLIVEN BUNDY - USA Detention Memorandum for Cliven BundyFraudulent Conveyance Quiet Title PacketUniform Commercial Code UCC – The Note The Transferee and the WardrobeReport on Fraudulent & Forged Assignments of Mortgages & Deeds in U.S. ForeclosuresGrazzini-Rucki v. Rucki Trial TranscriptGrace Estrellado, A089 056 676 (BIA Nov. 19, 2014)Show Temp (12)Mosby Bar Complaint Foreclosure Case Killer!- An Allonge Is Not Admissable Evidence of Bank’s OwnershipBIRTHER TIMELINE50 Cent v. World Star Hip Hop OpinionUber SettlementPharrell Williams + Robin Thicke v. Gaye - order re admissibility.pdfBlurred Lines Post Trial OrderWu-Tang Clan court filingKlingonSilk Road Prosecution 4th Amendment RebuttallDassey - OrderDocuments about Attorney's Fee20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitSample Producer Contract (Royalty-Bearing Work for Hire)Standard Form of Agreement for Design ServicesLawsuit against Hillary ClintonCarlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintStarsLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlI am an attorney so I decided to sue my lender...Apple WiFi Assist LawsuitIOS 9 Slows iPhone 4S ComplaintStatutory Construction and InterpretationTrek Bikes' lawsuit vs. cyclist Greg LemondGuide to copyright (1 MB)Prince v. Chodera - ComplaintMyEx.com LawsuitREBA v. NREIS DecisionUber SettlementTierneyweekndNBA Constitution and by LawsFormation 8 Joe Lonsdale LawsuitLisa Lee CVC ComplaintShaun White Legal ComplaintUBS Complaint Against Jeffries, Lorello and KellyLaurinaitis et al v. World Wrestling Entertainment et al complaintTrindl v. Yousaf, Et AlMotion - Substantiated Allegations of Foreclosure Fraud That Implicates the Florida Attorney General’s Office and The Florida Default Law GroupGoogle class action AdSense payout complaintMore from The Valley IndyHHWflyer Ansonia 2016Nepotism Policy MinutesCharter Redlined 9-30-16Senior FairAnsonia Friends Of LibraryLrcp 8-30-2016 Approved BoaAnsonia Debt ChartOctober 2016 DinnerBreakfast October 2016 FlierSteele Appeal Brief AppendixSteele Appeal BriefPINE ROCK Tag Sale Oct. 2016Mayor's Night OutHarvest Festival 2016Coxsackie LetterDowntown NowOpioid ConferenceBOA ROAD BOND MINUTES MAY 10 2016Derby Charter ChangesTeodosio OpinionWitek Park KayaksJaumann LetterQuest CitationsKindergarten Flier 2016-08-15Irving St. Mary St. Michael Bus ListDerby Middle School Bus ListEmmett O'Brien Platt Tech Bus ListDerby High School Bus ListBradley School Bus ListMets 2016