VILLENEUVE v. CONNECTICUT, STATE OF et al, No. 1:2009cv00013 - Document 86 (D. Me. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS AND THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 84 Report and Recommendations; denying 29 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 44 Motion to Dismiss; denying 52 Motion to Amend. ; denying 67 Motion for Sanctions; denying 70 Motion to Amend. ; denying 73 Motion for Alternative Dispute Resolution; denying 14 Motion for Entry of Default; denying 23 Motion for Entry of Default; denying 24 Motion for Default Judgment. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (kic)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE MARK VILLENEUVE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09-13-P-S ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS AND THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiff s Motion to Amend Heading and Party Information, filed on May 15, 2009 (Docket # 52), (2) Plaintiff s Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant State of Connecticut, filed on June 4, 2009 (Docket # 67), (3) Plaintiff s Motion to Amend Complaint, filed on June 10, 2009 (Docket # 70), and (4) Plaintiff s Motion for Alternative Dispute Resolution, filed on June 11, 2009 (Docket # 73). The Court has deferred ruling on these motions until it received the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge regarding multiple motions that were earlier put under advisement and referred to the Magistrate Judge. The Court now considers all pending motions in the order in which they were filed and briefed by the parties. On July 13, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed his Recommended Decision (Docket # 84), which recommends that this Court GRANT Defendant State of Connecticut s Motion to Dismiss (Docket # 44) and DENY Plaintiff s Motions for Entry of Default (Docket #s 14 & 23) and Plaintiff s Motions for Entry of Default Judgment (Docket #s 24 & 29). In connection with these recommendations, the Magistrate Judge also DENIED Plaintiff s Motions for Leave to Supplement the Record (Docket #s 78 & 81) and MOOTED Plaintiff s Objection to Court s 1 Refusal to Grant Default and Default Judgment (Docket # 25). I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations and rulings of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (Docket # 84) is hereby AFFIRMED. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant s Motion to Dismiss (Docket # 44) is GRANTED, Plaintiff s Motions for Entry of Default and Default Judgment (Docket #s 14, 23, 24 & 29) are DENIED, and Plaintiff s Objection to Court s Refusal to Grant Default and Default Judgment (Docket # 25) is MOOT. In accordance with these rulings, Plaintiff s federal claims against Defendant State of Connecticut are hereby DISMISSED and Plaintiff s state law claims against Defendant State of Connecticut are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims. See, e.g., Keenan v. Int l Assoc. of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, ---F. Supp. 2d ---, ---- (D. Me. 2009), 2009 WL 2021835, at *7 (similarly declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims). The Court turns its attention to the remaining four motions pending before this Court. In light of the Court s decision to dismiss all remaining claims against the State of Connecticut, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff s Motion to Amend Heading and Party Information (Docket # 52), Plaintiff s Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket # 70) and Plaintiff s Motion for Alternative Dispute Resolution (Docket # 73) as moot and futile. With respect to Plaintiff s Motion for Sanctions (Docket # 67), the Court DENIES this 2 Motion based on its finding that sanctions against Defendant are not appropriate. Moreover, the Court finds that although compliance with the safe harbor provision of Rule 11 would have been possible and appropriate under the circumstances, Plaintiff failed to comply with that provision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) (explaining, in relevant part, that the safe harbor applies to a challenged . . . contention [that can be] appropriately corrected ). SO ORDERED. _/s/ George Z. Singal __ United States District Judge Dated this 5th day of August, 2009. 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
