Milo Sheff et al. v. William A. O'Neill et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On February 22, 2010, this court issued a memorandum of decision denying the plaintiffs' corrected motion for material breach of the most recent stipulated agreement between the parties in this case.   The plaintiffs filed a motion to reargue pursuant to Practice Book § 11–12 ¹ on March 15, 2010 and the state filed an objection to the motion on March 17, 2010.   The court heard argument on March 31, 2010.

“[T]he purpose of a reargument is ․ to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts ․ [A] motion to reargue ․ is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple or to present additional cases or briefs which could have been presented at the time of the original argument.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Opoku v. Grant, 263 Conn.App. 686, 693, 778 A.2d 981 (2001).

The plaintiffs take issue with a sentence on page twenty-one of the court's memorandum of decision that states that “the plaintiffs took no position on Reverse Choice other than to raise funding issues” according to a letter, dated February 25, 2009, attached to the parties' January stipulation of facts.   They request that the court delete this finding arguing that the second half of the sentence in the letter concerns more than funding issues.

The second sentence of the February 25, 2009 letter fully states, “While, as we have previously expressed, we do not take a position on the legal question of whether [Reverse Choice] is permissible, it is nevertheless our position that the priorities and resources of the State and the [Regional School Choice Office] with regard to Open Choice seats should be focused on transfers of students that meet the Sheff remedy.”   Additionally, the first sentence of the third paragraph states, “It is our understanding that for the coming year, discussions are underway that would result in permitting at least 89 and perhaps 173 student applicants from suburban schools to enter Hartford schools, in a manner which would not reduce racial isolation, as defined by the Stipulation and Order, in the accepting schools.”

The court grants the motion to reargue and the requested relief.   Nevertheless, the deletion of the sentence of the court's memorandum of decision pertaining to the plaintiffs' letter of February 25, 2009 does not change the outcome of the opinion as otherwise set forth in this court's memorandum of decision, dated February 22, 2010.

Berger, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Section 11–12, in relevant part, provides:  “(a) A party who wishes to reargue a decision or order rendered by the court shall, within twenty days from the issuance of notice of the rendition of the decision or order, file a motion to reargue setting forth the decision or order which is the subject of the motion, the name of the judge who rendered it, and the specific grounds for reargument upon which the party relies ․”“(c) The motion to reargue shall be considered by the judge who rendered the decision or order.   Such judge shall decide, without a hearing, whether the motion to reargue should be granted.   If the judge grants the motion, the judge shall schedule the matter for hearing on the relief requested ․”.  FN1. Section 11–12, in relevant part, provides:  “(a) A party who wishes to reargue a decision or order rendered by the court shall, within twenty days from the issuance of notice of the rendition of the decision or order, file a motion to reargue setting forth the decision or order which is the subject of the motion, the name of the judge who rendered it, and the specific grounds for reargument upon which the party relies ․”“(c) The motion to reargue shall be considered by the judge who rendered the decision or order.   Such judge shall decide, without a hearing, whether the motion to reargue should be granted.   If the judge grants the motion, the judge shall schedule the matter for hearing on the relief requested ․”

Berger, Marshall K., J.