Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Villano v. Woodgreen Shelton LLC

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

May 8, 2019

ANTHONY G. VILLANO Plaintiff,
v.
WOODGREEN SHELTON LLC, et al. Defendants.

          ORDER RE: THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO AMEND [ECF NOS. 32, 34]

          KARI A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the Court are the Plaintiff's two motions to amend. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the motions are DENIED.

         As a preliminary matter, the Plaintiff's pleadings in this case are difficult to understand and, in some respects, entirely incomprehensible. The Plaintiff purports to bring an action under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code and in doing so used the civil rights complaint form available in this District. Yet, it is extraordinarily difficult for the Court to discern the nature and scope of the Plaintiff's claims or the relief that he seeks. The allegations are set forth as a disjointed series of seemingly unconnected statements of fact. For example, the Complaint that he seeks to amend describes the nature of the case as: “Theft of trust property's (sic) & violations of S.S.D. welfare plus [violations] of bankruptcy laws. . . . Abuse holding my personal items hostage lockout.” (Complaint ECF No. 1 at 3 (capitalizations omitted).)

         The Plaintiff asserts as his first cause of action: “Been violated under Elderly Criminal Act under Medicare.” (Id.) For supporting facts, he writes:

Attorney's Anthony Dicostun stole money's from Ciao Trust & Briano Trust David Pite Vin Marino Choen & Wolf Lorenzo Coletta WH Lori Lacleane Jeff Miller Shelton Peter Ressler will give more info once case starts I have all documents plus vidios picture's bank acct originals sorry about hand ritings I am scared for me and my family that's wy I need federal protection. I need protection's The police told me yesterday not to call 911 when the car I was driving got stolen in Milford court w[ith] my gun & medison It was a set up involving multiple agency's.

(Id. at 3-4 (capitalizations omitted; punctuation in the original).) Finally, in his request for relief the Plaintiff asserts: “I request the following relief: My life back They have wrong person & I am a victim protection They said I will be killed soon They have all my info stolen by Milford Police.” (Id. at 5 (capitalizations omitted; punctuation in the original).)

         The nature and scope of the claims are rendered even more confusing when juxtaposed with the named defendants. Although the Milford Police and Chief Mello[1] of the Milford Police Department are named as defendants, so are “WoodGreen Shelton, ” “Post Rd. Plaza LLC, ” the Orange Police Department, and Chief Gagne of the Orange Police Department. (Id. at 1.) These entities and persons appear nowhere in the body of the Complaint. It is against this murky backdrop that the Court considers the motions to amend.

         The First Motion to Amend (ECF No. 32)

         The first motion to amend, filed on April 16, 2019, provides that the Plaintiff “started this case against a number of people including Peter Ressler who was my personal attorney before he gave up his license to practice law.” (ECF No. 32 at ¶ 2.) The Plaintiff further asserts that he wishes “to amend [his] claim against him and make my claim against him more clear.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) The Plaintiff is mistaken, however. Mr. Ressler is not a named defendant in this action, has not been served, and has not appeared. In reality, the Plaintiff seeks to add Mr. Ressler as a new defendant in this action.

         Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may be added “at any time” and “on just terms.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. “Since Rule 21 does not provide any standards by which district courts can determine if parties are misjoined, courts have looked to Rule 20 for guidance.” TicketNetwork, Inc. v. Darbouze, 133 F.Supp.3d 442, 447 (D. Conn. 2015) (quoting Acevedo v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc., 600 F.3d 516, 521 (5th Cir. 2010)). Rule 20 provides for “permissive joinder” of parties and indicates that defendants may be joined if “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction [or] occurrence . . .; and . . . any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2).

         Here, the Plaintiff has not alleged that Mr. Ressler might be jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for the current defendants' conduct, that Mr. Ressler's conduct arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, or that there are common questions of law or fact as to all defendants. As quoted above, the Plaintiff does identify Mr. Ressler as a potential witness in the Complaint, (ECF No. 1 at 3), but the dispute that the Plaintiff has with Mr. Ressler that is referenced in the first motion to amend appears to be entirely separate and distinct from the Plaintiff's dispute with the defendants named in the Complaint. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to permit the Plaintiff to add Mr. Ressler as a defendant in this action.

         The Second Motion to Amend (ECF No. 34)

         In the second motion to amend, filed on April 26, 2019, the Plaintiff seeks to add two plaintiffs and five defendants.[2] (ECF No. 34.) The proposed amendment, which the Plaintiff seeks only to serve as a supplement to his original complaint, is as confusing as the original complaint.

         Although the Plaintiff lists eleven causes of action, [3] he provides no additional factual allegations, except to attach a series of documents which do little to shed light on the allegations and claims at issue in the proposed supplement to the Complaint. Finally, the requests for relief makes little sense, in part, because ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.