Lamar v. Waterbury et al

Filing 42

NOTICE & ORDER: See attached. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 1/6/12. (Constantine, A.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SOLOMON LAMAR, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WATERBURY, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : CASE NO. 3:10cv1390(RNC) NOTICE On October 21, 2011, the undersigned held a conference on the record at which the plaintiff's attorney Daniel DiBartolomeo, the plaintiff and defense counsel appeared. The subject of the conference was the plaintiff's letter to the court (doc. #39) regarding his attorney.1 During the conference, the undersigned afforded the plaintiff time to consider whether he wished to have Attorney DiBartolomeo continue to represent him.2 The undersigned instructed the plaintiff to report to her by November 20, 2011 as to how he wished to proceed but has not heard from the plaintiff. However, after the conference, Judge Chatigny received an undated letter from the 1 The plaintiff complained that, among other things, Attorney DiBartolomeo had not returned his phone calls. During the hearing, Attorney DiBartolomeo stated that he had severed his employment with his law firm and assumed that counsel from his former firm was representing the plaintiff. The docket reflects that Attorney DiBartolomeo did not file a withdrawal of his appearance and that no attorney from his former law firm ever filed an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. 2 Attorney DiBartolomeo indicated that he would be happy to continue to represent the plaintiff. plaintiff stating that his "lawyer will not release [his] file" so the plaintiff can "search[] for another lawyer." that he is not equipped to proceed pro se. He also states On November 30, 2011, Attorney DiBartolomeo filed an opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment.3 (Doc. #41.) At this juncture: (1) the defendants' motion for summary judgment is adjudication; ripe and for (2) decision, Attorney that is, DiBartolomeo it has is not ready moved for to withdraw as counsel and continues to be counsel of record for the plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court shall cause a copy of this notice to be sent to Mr. Lamar, at 107 Chipper Road, Waterbury, CT 06704 and to Attorney DiBartolomeo, at 203 Circle Drive, Bantam CT 06750. SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 6th day of January, 2012. ___________/s/________________ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge 3 Because this is an electronically filed case, counsel e-filed his opposition. His papers indicate an address different from that which appears on the docket. Pursuant to D.Conn.L.Civ.R. 83.2(c)(3), counsel is required to notify the Clerk of the Court of a change of address. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?