Case Activity (7427)

1. Order | Filed: July 02, 2026 | Entered: July 02, 2026 Errato v. Bendett & McHugh, PC et al

   Consumer Credit | Connecticut

   Order on Motion to Dismiss

   ORDER. On May 6, 2026, upon notice that the remaining parties had settled, see ECF No. 80 (May 1, 2026), the court instructed them to file a stipulation of dismissal by May 29, or to move to extend such deadline, otherwise the case would be "deemed dismissed with prejudice without any further action of the court," see ECF No. 81. Plaintiff and the Brock Defendants did not do so in May, but now jointly move for voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). ECF No. 83, at 1. However, because this case was closed following, inter alia the court's dismissal of the claims against Citizens and the reported settlement between Plaintiff and the Brock Defendants, the court now FINDS as MOOT the 83 Motion to Dismiss.
   
   It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 7/2/26. (KK)

2. Order | Filed: June 29, 2026 | Entered: June 29, 2026 Washington et al v. State of Connecticut et al

   Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut

   Order on Motion to Vacate Order on Motion to Stay

   ORDER. The Washingtons have filed a Motion to Vacate or Set Aside Order 39 and an Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Reconsideration and Appeal 41 . These motions ask the court to vacate its June 17, 2026 Order 35 holding that the Washingtons' purported removals to this court were procedurally improper and to order a stay of the foreclosure and eviction proceedings in state court. ECF No. 39 , at 5; ECF No. 41 , at 9.
   
   The Washingtons argue that the court should do so because (1) the Order made "a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact" when it described the Complaint 1 as being 600 pages long, and (2) the court "erred by failing to liberally construe [the Washingtons'] pro se pleadings" as required" by law. ECF No. 39 , at 4; ECF No. 41 , at 5-6.
   
   The court liberally construes ECF No. 39 as a motion for reconsideration. The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that "[t]he standard for granting... a motion [for reconsideration] is strict." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration "will generally be denied unless the [movant] can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked, matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Id. Courts have granted motions for reconsideration in limited circumstances, including: (1) where there has been an "intervening change of controlling law"; (2) where new evidence has become available; or (3) where there is a "need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790).
   
   The Washingtons do not meet this standard. The categorization of the length of the Washingtons' pleading in this case, which includes a 29-page Complaint and 568 pages of exhibits, ECF Nos. 1 - 2 , has no bearing on whether the removals in this case were proper, nor does it constitute "new evidence." The court's Order evaluated the Washingtons' arguments, applied the law regarding removal, and determined that the Washingtons' cases had not been properly removed. That the court did not distinguish the length of the attachments to the Complaint from the Complaint itself in describing the length of the filing at ECF Nos. 1 and 2 is irrelevant to the court's conclusions.
   
   Moreover, the Washingtons' repeated assertion that the court held their "pro se pleadings to the same stringent standards as those drafted by attorneys" is flatly incorrect. ECF No. 40 , at 8. The court "liberally construed" their pleadings as required by law and found them wanting because, as discussed in the Order 7425 additional result(s)