Kloth-Zanard v. Weebly, Inc.
| Connecticut District Court | |
| Judge: | Sarala V Nagala |
| Referred: | Maria E Garcia |
| Case #: | 3:24-cv-00965 |
| Nature of Suit | 446 Civil Rights - Amer w/Disabilities - Other |
| Cause | 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act |
| Case Filed: | May 30, 2024 |
| Last checked: Tuesday Nov 26, 2024 3:17 AM EST |
|
Defendant
Block, Inc.
|
Represented By
|
| TERMINATED PARTIES | |
|
Defendant
Weebly, Inc.
Terminated: 07/05/2024
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Joan T. Kloth-Zanard
Terminated: 07/05/2024
320 North George's Hill Road
Southbury, CT 06488 |
|
|
Plaintiff
PAS Intervention
Terminated: 08/21/2024
|
|
|
Plaintiff
Snowshed Designs
Terminated: 08/21/2024
|
|
| Docket last updated: 5 hours ago |
| Tuesday, January 14, 2025 | ||
| 80 | 80
order
Order on Motion for Reconsideration
Tue 01/14 3:28 PM
ORDER denying79 Motion for Reconsideration. "The standard for granting [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." Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc. , 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019); see also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1; Cho v. Blackberry Ltd. , 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up) . A motion for reconsideration is "not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple." Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P. , 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Even when reading this motion with the special solicitude Court's must afford pro se litigants, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration identifies neither controlling decisions nor new evidence that the Court overlooked in its prior decisions denying appointment of counsel. Rather, Plaintiff reasserts arguments previously raised and considered by the Court when it determined that Plaintiff has not satisfied the threshold requirement for appointment of counsel--likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED . Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/14/2025. (Webb, E) |
|
| Saturday, January 11, 2025 | ||
| 79 | 79
motion
Reconsideration
Sat 01/11 7:54 AM
Fourth MOTION for Reconsideration re 78 Order,,,,,,,, by Joan T. Kloth-Zanard. (Kloth-Zanard, Joan) |
|
| Friday, January 10, 2025 | ||
| 78 | 78
order
Order
Fri 01/10 6:00 PM
ORDER denying77 Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Plaintiff has filed a third motion for appointment of counsel. As the Court previously explained, see ECF Nos. 23 , 60 , the decision to appoint pro bono counsel is discretionary. Leftridge v. Conn. State Trooper Officer No. 1283 , 640 F.3d 62, 68-69 (2d Cir. 2011) ("A party has no constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of counsel in a civil case." (citation omitted)); Hodge v. Police Officers , 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986) ("Broad discretion lies with the district judge in deciding whether to appoint counsel[.]" (citation omitted)); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(1) (permitting district court to appoint pro bono counsel for indigent litigant). The Second Circuit has cautioned the district courts against the "routine appointment of counsel." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co. , 877 F.2d 170, 173-74 (2d Cir. 1989). Before an appointment of pro bono counsel for an indigent litigant is considered, the indigent person must demonstrate that he tried, but was unable, to secure counsel. Hodge , 802 F.2d at 61. In addition, the district court must "determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance." Id . at 61; see also Cooper , 877 F.2d at 171. This case still remains in an early stage. Therefore, the Court has not yet had occasion to determine that the claims are sufficiently meritorious to warrant appointment of pro bono counsel. The Court is mindful of the difficulties faced by parties when litigating an action without an attorney. However, the Court can only impose upon private attorneys to give their time and efforts without compensation in cases where the plaintiff has demonstrated that the claims have sufficient merit. The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has satisfied that threshold requirement in this case. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that her legal claims are sufficiently likely to succeed on the merits, the Third Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. 77, is DENIED without prejudice . Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/10/2025. (Webb, E) |
|
| Thursday, January 09, 2025 | ||
| 77 | 77
respm
Response
Thu 01/09 7:06 AM
RESPONSE re 76 Order,,,,74 Reply to Response to Motion,75 Response,73 Objection filed by Joan T. Kloth-Zanard. (Kloth-Zanard, Joan) |
|
| Wednesday, January 08, 2025 | ||
| 76 | 76
order
Order
Wed 01/08 2:54 PM
ORDER. Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendant's reply to Plaintiff's motion in opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss, which functions as a sur-reply. See ECF No.75 . As the Court has previously informed Plaintiff, under Local Rule 7(d), this sur-reply is improper. See ECF No. 70. Local Rule 7(d) states that "No sur-replies may be filed without permission of the Court, which may, in its discretion, grant permission upon a showing of good cause." Defendant's motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. Plaintiff has not sought permission of the Court to file this sur-reply. Accordingly, the Court will disregard the filing. Should Plaintiff wish to refile this sur-reply, she must first seek permission of the Court to do so. Sur-reply briefs are generally disfavored unless the reply raises a new issue not previously raised. Plaintiff is reminded to review the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure and proceed in accordance with those rules. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/8/2025 (Webb, E) |
|
| Tuesday, January 07, 2025 | ||
| 75 | 75
respm
Response
Tue 01/07 11:57 AM
Second RESPONSE re74 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Joan T. Kloth-Zanard. (Kloth-Zanard, Joan) |
|
| 74 | 74
respm
Reply to Response to Motion
Tue 01/07 10:22 AM
REPLY to Response to52 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Block, Inc.. (Zeitlin, Andrew) |
|