Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 559 views

    Plaintiff's Response - Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    Leisha Tringali
    The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff argues that the defendant violated her due process rights under the U.S. Constitution during an ongoing administrative enforcement action. While the defendant claims the court lacks jurisdiction due to the ongoing administrative proceedings, the plaintiff counters that it is these very proceedings that caused the constitutional violations. The plaintiff asserts that the court does have jurisdiction to address the violations. The defendant further claims immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, but the plaintiff argues immunity is waived because the defendant accepted federal funds. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that the court deny the motion to dismiss.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Plaintiff's Response - Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    Leisha Tringali
    559 views3 pages
    The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff argues that the defendant violated her due process rights under the U.S. Constitution during an ongoing administrative enforcement action. While the defendant claims the court lacks jurisdiction due to the ongoing administrative proceedings, the plaintiff counters that it is these very proceedings that caused the constitutional violations. The plaintiff asserts that the court does have jurisdiction to address the violations. The defendant further claims immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, but the plaintiff argues immunity is waived because the defendant accepted federal funds. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that the court deny the motion to dismiss.

    Original Title

    Plaintiff's Response - Motion to Dismiss

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff argues that the defendant violated her due process rights under the U.S. Constitution during an ongoing administrative enforcement action. While the defendant claims the court lacks jurisdiction due to the ongoing administrative proceedings, the plaintiff counters that it is these very proceedings that caused the constitutional violations. The plaintiff asserts that the court does have jurisdiction to address the violations. The defendant further claims immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, but the plaintiff argues immunity is waived because the defendant accepted federal funds. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that the court deny the motion to dismiss.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    559 views3 pages

    Plaintiff's Response - Motion To Dismiss

    Uploaded by

    Leisha Tringali
    The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff argues that the defendant violated her due process rights under the U.S. Constitution during an ongoing administrative enforcement action. While the defendant claims the court lacks jurisdiction due to the ongoing administrative proceedings, the plaintiff counters that it is these very proceedings that caused the constitutional violations. The plaintiff asserts that the court does have jurisdiction to address the violations. The defendant further claims immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, but the plaintiff argues immunity is waived because the defendant accepted federal funds. Therefore, the plaintiff requests that the court deny the motion to dismiss.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    ____________________________________ ) Leisha Tringali, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) vs. ) ) ) Department of Transitional Assistance, et al., ) ) Defendants ) ____________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 12-CV-124-PB

    PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS

    Plaintiff, hereby submits this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. As set forth in more detail below, Plaintiff brought its action against the Defendant(s) because the Defendant(s) has violated the Plaintiffs due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth rights under the U.S. Constitution, the federal statute governing the Defendant(s), and nearly seven decades of established, unquestioned, and unchallenged U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. Because of these violations, and regardless of any ongoing administrative proceedings against the Plaintiff, jurisdiction to hear this action is properly before this court. The Defendants Motion to Dismiss is predicated on the argument that this Court has no jurisdiction over this lawsuit. The Defendants has not yet rendered its final agency decision in the ongoing administrative enforcement action against the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant's arguments actually have it backwards - they miss the point that it is the Defendant's pursuit of the ongoing administrative enforcement action that has caused the Plaintiff to suffer egregious violations of her constitutional rights. The Court's jurisdiction over this lawsuit arises from the very fact that the Defendant's pursuit of the ongoing administrative action is unconstitutional and in brazen defiance of the very real and clear statutory and constitutional limits upon its statutory authority.

    There is a core constitutional requirement that the plaintiff alleged some actual or threatened injury that is fairly traceable to the defendants and can be remedied by an order directed against the defendants. At issue in this case is the defendant(s) pursuit of an administrative enforcement actions against the plaintiff which violated her due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. The defendant(s) claim plaintiffs suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution declaring they are not persons under the remedial statue of plaintiffs claim, 42 U.S.C 1983. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar Plaintiffs claims because defendants have waived their immunity by accepting federal funds ie; Title IV Part A and Title IV Part D. The relevant question, then, is whether Massachusetts has waived its immunity.

    WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the memorandum of law, Plaintiff respectfully request the motion to dismiss be denied.

    Dated: August 24, 2012

    Respectfully submitted,

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this the 24th day of August, 2012, I filed the foregoing Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with the Clerk of the Court via certified mail through the United States Post Office, to the following: United States District Court, Office of the Clerk, 55 Pleasant Street, Room 110, Concord, New Hampshire 03301-3941
    I, Leisha Tringali, hereby certify that a true copy of the above complaint was mailed by first class mail through the United States Post Office to the following Defendants and the Massachusetts Attorney General at the addresses listed below. 1. Daniel J. Curley for The Department of Transitional Assistance has its principal place of business at 600 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111 2. Amy Pitter for The DOR / Child Support Enforcement agency has its principal place of business at 100 Cambridge, Boston, Massachusetts 02114.

    3. The defendant Doug Comfort principal place of business is located at 100 Sylvan Road, 100 Trade Center, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 4. Rachel Kaprielian for The Registry of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Transportation has its principal place of business at 10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160 Boston, MA 02116 5. Attorney James A. Sweeney, Deputy Division Chief, Government Bureau/Trial Division One Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Date: August 24, 2012 _________________________________ Leisha D. Tringali ( Pro Se )

    You might also like