Last week’s court hearing was the culmination of weeks of furious filings of motions, objections and requests from both sides in the Sensible Wilton lawsuit, with the citizen’s group seeing some small victories in the battle of requests leading up to their day in court on Monday, July 20. Now that Judge Kenneth Povodator has heard arguments and testimony on the motion to dismiss the case, there’s been an odd silence as Wilton waits to see whether or not the judge will say the lawsuit can proceed .

The lawsuit asks the court to compel the Board of Selectmen to call a Special Town Meeting so that residents can vote on an ordinance proposed by Sensible Wilton–the same thing the group’s second petition asked. The ordinance would repeal the M-D $50 million bond referendum, which passed by a narrow 27-vote margin last September.

To keep straight on where things stand and how we’ve gotten here, GOOD Morning Wilton compiled a timeline of lawsuit-related events, starting from the point that Sensible Wilton filed their suit on June 1. We’ve linked to the many documents that have been filed in the case, and pointed out notable moments and arguments from each side. At least one thing is clear–there’s no love lost between the opposing counsel.

  • June 1:  Sensible Wilton files a lawsuit against Wilton and the members of the Board of Selectmen. The complaint filed is one that doesn’t seek monetary damages, but instead seeks a ‘temporary writ of mandamus,’ which asks the court to order town officials to appear and explain why they have not acceded to the SW’s earlier petition requests. It also asks the court to compel the BoS to call a Special Town Meeting. Sensible Wilton’s president, Alex Ruskewich, and treasurer, Curt Noel, are named as non-parties; the plaintiff is Sensible Wilton, and the group is represented by Simon Reiff, a Wilton resident and lawyer based in NYC.
  • June 1:  Reiff also files a plaintiff’s motion, a 31-page document outlining Sensible Wilton’s argument. It states that SW is a “…duly formed political committee under the laws of the State of Connecticut. Its stated purpose is to oppose a proposed renovation of the Miller-Driscoll School (the “School”) in the Town of Wilton (the “Town”), at a cost of over $50,000,000, and its supporters include many hundreds of electors in the Town.”
    • The motion asserts that SW has a “clear, legal right” under the Town Charter to call for a Special Town Meeting.
    • It also charges that the BoS had no standing on which to refuse Sensible Wilton’s petitions and requests.
    • The motion says that the BoS refusal leaves Sensible Wilton “with no adequate remedy at law.”
    • Sensible Wilton’s motion also states that if the writ of mandamus is not granted, it will cause the group “irreparable injury.”
  • June 2:  The Board of Selectmen (or representatives) is ordered to appear in court to show why the order of mandamus should not be granted. Defendants are ordered to appear on June 22.
  • June 22:  The case is assigned to the Superior Court’s Special Proceedings Calendar and a hearing is set for July 20.
  • June 22: Lawyers from the town counsel’s firm, Danbury-based Cohen and Wolfe, say they plan to file a motion to dismiss. The court sets deadlines for when that and all related filings must happen, and sets the hearing for the motion to dismiss on July 20–the same day the case is set to be heard.
  • June 24:  Town lawyers file an application to refer the case to the Complex Legal Docket. Monte Frank, the town’s lead attorney, argues that the case was too complex or challenging to be heard in civil court, stating, “This case involves complex interplay of Wilton’s charter, municipal financing and state election law.”
  • July 6:  The town’s lawyers file a motion to dismiss the case. Among the arguments:
    • Sensible Wilton is a “referendum committee” that was formed to oppose a referendum that concluded months ago, so it should have been disbanded in 2014
    • Referendum committees do not have legal standing to petition or bring lawsuits
    • Sensible Wilton has no members and can’t file a lawsuit on behalf of “members” it does not have
    • Sensible Wilton was formed to raise and spend money to oppose a referendum, not file a lawsuit
  • July 6:  The town’s lawyers file a 23-page memo in support of their motion to dismiss, calling the lawsuit a “final ‘hail mary’ effort to undermine the will of Wilton taxpayers.”
    • The memo argues that SW does not have standing to bring the lawsuit.
    • It states that the town has already issued more that $8 million in bonds, spent millions and committed many more millions on the M-D renovation project.
    • It also says that the referendum vote was already certified and the appeal period had expired.
    • It charges that not only would a successful lawsuit hurt the town’s future chances of issuing bonds, “it would have a ripple effect on the bond market as a whole.”
    • Key to the town’s argument is that they maintain Sensible Wilton does not have members. They say the SW website stated the group had no members and that president Alex Ruskewich testified the group had no members in a deposition conducted on July 1 by Monte Frank. As such, the town lawyers argue, Sensible Wilton has no standing to bring action and the court has no jurisdiction over it.
    • The memo also alleges the key deponents–Ruskewich and Noel–refer to SW having “no members” and later change their own description to say there are “two members”:  “Sensible Wilton’s claim now that Ruskewich and Noel are the two members does not change anything, as it is not believable, and even if so, is meaningless as they are “members” in name only.
    • Attached to the memo are numerous pages of exhibits, including copies of webpages from the SW website, SEEC complaint filings and dismissals, the July 1 deposition, and more.
      • One of the exhibits is copies of pages from the July 1 deposition of Alex Ruskewich. Reading through there is a section where Frank ask a question to which Ruskewich responds, “We have no members.” …  Reiff immediately objects.
      • we do not have members
      • The lawyers seem to become more adversarial in their interactions, as Reiff cautions his client to consider his answer carefully and then asks for a break, which Frank refuses to grant. It appears to turn contentious.
      • witness not excused
      • Reiff steps out with his clients. When he returns the frostiness between lawyers seems to continue, as Frank resumes his questions–directly addressing what Reiff told his clients when they stepped out.
      • Screen Shot 2015-07-27 at 10.06.11 PM
      • Reiff accuses Frank  of ‘smirking’ and asks him to stop:smirking
      • At Frank’s next question, Ruskewich responds that he and Curt are members:
      • we're the only two members
      • There are also questions about how much they are paying Reiff as a retainer to represent Sensible Wilton, from where those funds are coming, and whether or not Sensible Wilton was paying that retainer or expenses.
      • The exhibits include SEEC forms. Among them are financial disclosure forms, and lists of donors. Sensible Wilton received $300 in small donations as well as three $100 donations, listed with names of donors.
  • July 9:  Sensible Wilton files an objection to move the case to the Complex Litigation Docket.
  • July 10:  The town’s attorneys file a reply to the prior day’s objection, arguing again why the Complex Litigation Docket is appropriate.
  • July 13:  Judge Linda Lager denies Wilton’s Complex Litigation Docket application.
  • July 13:  Town lawyers file a motion for continuance, or delay of the case. Along with that motion they file a brief arguing the hearing on the lawsuit should be delayed to a later date than July 20, because it’s been scheduled for the same day as the motion to dismiss. Town lawyers argue that the motion to dismiss needs to be heard first.
  • July 14:  Reiff files a motion to suppress the depositions of his clients Ruskewich and Noel. In it he charges that town lawyers “…willfully refused to make such transcripts available for reading and signing as required…”  He also asks that Cohen and Wolfe lawyers be sanctioned and compelled to pay related attorneys fees and costs.
    • Exhibits attached to that motion and related affidavit from Reiff include correspondence between Reiff and Frank. The emails show Reiff asks for original deposition transcripts to be proffered, stating it’s a “formal request.”  Frank responds in an email, telling Reiff he is “not obligated to pay for your transcript copies, and I do not agree that the Practice Book requires me to provide you with my copy, which we paid for…, if you would like your clients to review and sign the deposition transcripts, you should make arrangements with the court reporter.”
  • July 14:   Reiff files a request for adjudication of discovery or deposition dispute, informing the court that there is an unresolvable conflict between the lawyers over the depositions.
  • July 14:  Reiff files a motion opposing the town lawyers request to dismiss the case, arguing that the organization does have standing to bring the suit against the town.  Some interesting points:
    • Reiff argues that Sensible Wilton has “1,000-plus supporters,” many of whom do not want to join the lawsuit due to a “well-founded fear of retaliation…”
    • He cites a July 7 interview with Al Alper, a member of Wilton’s Board of Finance, in GOOD Morning Wilton, and quotes Alper speaking about Ruskewich: “‘…if he was named, then he’d [be] the one we could go after if he fails and the town has to bear a cost.’”
    • The motion notes that among SW supporters are, “…three (3) former Selectmen and at least one currently elected official,” who do not want to identify themselves as such because they fear retaliation and “threatened countersuit.”
  • July 15:  Reiff files an objection to Frank’s motion for continuance. He says Sensible Wilton “would suffer irreparable injury” if it is granted. Among many reasons, notable is the fact that if the hearing is delayed, the project would still move forward. Contracts will be signed and demolition will begin in Dec. 2015, rendering the lawsuit “moot.”
  • July 15:  Frank replies to Reiff’s objection (above).
  • July 15:  The court issues an order reaffirming the July 20 court date for both the motion to dismiss and opening the hearing on the lawsuit, stating the motion to dismiss would be heard first.
  • July 17:  Town lawyers file another 16-page memo (plus multiple pages of exhibits), offering further support for the motion to dismiss. In it, they offer counter arguments to SW’s assertions, and state that SW’s attorneys:
    • assert new theories
    • are “pursuing an assortment of misguided tactics in a frenzied attempt to elude the consequences of sworn deposition testimony and documentary evidence”
    • misinterpreting CT law
  • July 20: The motion to dismiss is heard first in court. Judge Povodator concludes the day saying he will do his best to consider the evidence presented and issue a decision as quickly as possible.
  • July 27:  Reiff files a withdrawal of his motion to suppress the depositions.  Given that he and his clients were able to review the transcripts of depositions during the hearing on July 20, the complaint was no longer necessary.

One reply on “Sensible Wilton Lawsuit Timeline: Catching Up to Where We are Now”

Comments are closed.