NORWALK, Conn. — Jason Milligan’s request to have the lawsuit filed against him dismissed has been denied.
Judge Charles Lee on Tuesday ruled against the motion to dismiss filed by Milligan’s attorney, David Rubin, in the lawsuit filed by the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency and the City of Norwalk against Milligan and three of his legal entities. The plaintiffs allege that Milligan wrongfully obtained control of, and encumbered with debt, properties that were slated to become part of Wall Street Place phases II and III, violating the Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) for the properties, the 2004 Wall Street Redevelopment Plan and State Statutes. They are asking the court to nullify the property transfers, financings, and leases, and a temporary injunction to prevent Milligan from selling the properties.
“{M}y motion to dismiss was denied on a technicality today,” Milligan wrote Tuesday afternoon.
Milligan had argued that since the 2004 Redevelopment plan has expired and been replaced by a significantly different plan, the Wall Street-West Avenue Neighborhood Plan, in March, the lawsuit is invalid. The technical description of this is “the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.” The plaintiffs said Milligan’s actions took place while the 2004 plan was still valid and argued that the 2019 plan is an extension of the 2004 plan.
In their lengthy reply brief, the Milligan defendants did not address the contention that his actions took place while the 2004 plan was in effect, Lee wrote, calling the omission a violation of the legal practice book.
“The City and the Agency seek remedies for various violations that occurred prior to the amended expiration date of the 2004 Plan and any impact on the LDA,” Lee wrote. “Plaintiffs have a right to do so, and the court plainly has subject matter jurisdiction to hear their complaints. Consideration of the merits of the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction must await the conclusion of proceedings relating to the request for injunctive relief.”
“In the denial, Judge Lee got a few things right, but the merits of our argument was ignored; ‘Mr. Sheehan testified on the stand that the 2004 Plan had been amended and had expired or was replaced as of June 2018…’” Milligan wrote. “Unfortunately the 2004 Plan expired a few days after I purchased the properties.”
A date for a status conference will be announced.
‘Taxpayer money wasted on legal fees’
The Redevelopment Agency’s legal bills for the lawsuit were $553,699.52 as of June 30. The Agency retained Shipman & Goodwin Attorney Joseph Williams to represent it in the case.
Milligan wrote:
“Judge Lee’s ruling is disappointing mostly because it might give Crony Joe false hope that he could somehow justify the $750,000 of taxpayer money wasted on legal fees based upon his bad advice. There is zero reason to continue enriching Crony Joe and his large Law Firm. There is absolutely no imminent or irreparable harm.
“From the beginning, the only way to a timely worthwhile solution to the POKO mess is through open, honest discussion and negotiation.
“Recently there has been ongoing conversation between all relevant parties. Hopefully that communication can continue. It cannot continue while enormous legal battles are simultaneously taking place.”
Corporation Counsel Mario Coppola replied:
“Mr. Milligan has engaged in a legal strategy aimed at delaying the case from getting adjudicated by the court and running up the cost of the litigation through continuous and well-timed motion practice challenging the court’s jurisdiction. The case was stopped to a grinding halt every time that Mr. Milligan filed a motion to dismiss challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
“Today the court ruled in favor of the City and Agency, and denied Mr. Milligan’s most recent motion to dismiss the case. Today’s ruling was the second time so far in this case that the court denied a motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Milligan. Now the City and Agency will continue to learn a lot more about what has transpired through the discovery process, and will ask the court to enter appropriate relief based on the evidence that we present at the pending injunction hearing and then the trial.”
Leave a Reply
You must Register or Login to post a comment.