Today the old goat’s attorney William Ward filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The Motion asked the Federal Judge to reconsider her ruling ordering that the deposition of Sarah Greer go forward as scheduled, without any further delay, on December 12.
Yesterday I reported that Judge Martinez denied the old goat’s Motion to Quash the Subpoena and Deposition notice. The attorney for Mirlis, Antonio Ponvert, filed an opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration. He argued that this was just another delay tactic being undertaken by the old goat and his hand puppet attorney William Ward.
Within 24 hours the Court ruled on the Motion for Reconsideration and once again slammed the depraved goat and his hand puppet attorney and denied the Motion.
Hand puppet Attorney Ward argued in his motion for reconsideration that Sarah Greer wished to “obtain independent counsel in this matter.” I had written in an earlier blog posting that it was a conflict of interest for hand puppet Ward to represent the old goat, the non-profits, Sarah Greer and officers of the non-profit at the same time. Each person and entity should have independent counsel.
In an earlier blog I had recommended a few local attorneys that Sarah Greer could hire, such as Marsha Moses, Anne Epstein, Debbie Marino, and Debbie Dorio. I thought that Sarah Greer, who likes to be referred to as “Rebbetzin Greer,” would prefer to hire a Jewish female attorney. Debbie Dorio is not Jewish, but she knows all the Yiddish lingo because she represents many people in the Orthodox Jewish community in Waterbury.
I failed to mention prominent Jewish attorney Jocelyn Hurwitz, from the prestigious Bridgeport law firm of Cohen & Wolf. She is ranked in the top 25 Connecticut woman super lawyers in the Super Lawyers magazine. She doesn’t wear a cape, unlike Frank Costanza’s attorney. She is married to New Haven attorney Scott Hurwitz, who is also Jewish. Scott Hurwitz did not get ranked by Super Lawyers, but his father attorney Norm Hurwitz thinks Scott is a super lawyer and a super father to his grandchildren.
In other news the New Haven Independent finally reported on the Greer fire at the compound, the story I had blogged about over a week ago. The Independent did not give me any credit. This Rag rewrote my blog and didn’t even mention my name. Chutzpah!
I will give the Independent credit for conducting interviews with the displaced tenants. These tenants need to sue the old goat. The Independent failed to mention that the fire was so bad that a tenant’s car got melted into the Greer driveway. Too bad the old goat didn’t get melted into the driveway.
Below is a copy of the court order denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the old goat’s hand puppet. Ironically Federal Judge Martinez cited a case that was brought against Richard Blumenthal, current Senator and former Connecticut Attorney General, and former friend of the goat. Blumenthal has long abandoned the goat, just like the rest of the goat’s litter, and refused to attend the goat’s annual fundraising dinner this past summer.
ORDER : Defendant Greer’s motion for reconsideration is denied. “The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party 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.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). “A motion for reconsideration may not be used to plug gaps in an original argument or to argue in the alternative once a decision has been made…. It is also not appropriate to use a motion to reconsider solely to re-litigate an issue already decided.” SPGGC, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 408 F. Supp. 2d 87, 91-92 (D. Conn. 2006). Three grounds can justify reconsideration: “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the 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). The defendant does not advance any of these grounds, much less satisfy them. “[T]he motion for reconsideration does not cite or acknowledge the legal standard that governs a motion for reconsideration. [Defendantl] has ignored governing law and done nothing to satisfy it.” Mercedes Zee Corp., LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., No. 3:14cv119(JAM), slip. op. at 2 (D. Conn. Sept. 16, 2016). The motion is denied. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 12/9/16. (Constantine, A.) (Entered: 12/09/2016)