Doe et al v. Board of Education et al

Filing 484

ORDER: Defendant Hasak's Motion 465 to Stay Execution of Judgment is GRANTED, but that grant is conditioned on his posting a bond sufficient to satisfy the judgment against him. Plaintiffs' Motion 462 to Amend/Correct is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 9/24/15. (Harris, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JOHN DOE, by and through his Parents and next
friends, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Doe; and MR. ROBERT
Civil No. 3:11cv1581 (JBA)
DOE; MRS. ROBERT DOE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DARIEN BOARD OF EDUCATION, ZACHARY
HASAK, MELISSA BELLINO, and LAURA
CONTE,
September 24, 2015
Defendants.
RULING ON MOTIONS TO STAY AND TO AMEND
On August 4, 2015, the jury in this case returned a verdict for Plaintiffs against
Defendant Zachary Hasak for violations of John Doe’s substantive due process rights.
Defendant Hasak now seeks [Doc. # 465] a stay of execution of the judgment against
him, pending the Court’s ruling on his two motions for a new trial. Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 62(b), “[o]n appropriate terms for the opposing party’s security, the court
may stay the execution of a judgment—or any proceedings to enforce it—pending
disposition of” a Rule 59 motion. However, as Plaintiffs observe, Defendant here has not
proposed appropriate terms for the opposing party’s security. Thus, Defendant’s Motion
[Doc. # 465] to Stay Execution of Judgment is GRANTED, but that grant is conditioned
on his posting a bond sufficient to satisfy the judgment against him.
Additionally, Plaintiffs seek [Doc. # 462] to amend their complaint. Under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b)(2), “[w]hen an issue not raised by the pleadings is
tried by the parties’ express or implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if
raised in the pleadings. A party may move—at any time, even after judgment—to amend
the pleadings to conform them to the evidence and to raise an unpleaded issue.”
Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ proposed amendments to the extent that they include
changes to Count III (the charge upon which the jury found Mr. Hasak to be liable), on
the grounds that Plaintiffs are seeking “to change the nature of their substantive due

process claim from one predicated upon an assault . . . to one predicated on ‘abuse.’”
(Objection [Doc. # 469] at 3.) The Court disagrees. The evidence adduced at trial was not
confined to evidence of assault or physical abuse; the allegations clearly included other
forms of sexual abuse. Moreover, although Defendant Hasak has filed two motions for a
new trial under Rule 59, neither motion is predicated on a claim of insufficient evidence.1
Therefore, although judgment has already entered, the Court will permit Plaintiffs’
amendments to their pleadings to conform them to the evidence. Plaintiffs’ Motion [Doc.
# 462] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 24th day of September, 2015.

1

These motions will be discussed in a separate ruling.
2