United States of America v. City of New York

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Intervene in the Remedy Phase of this Action to Letters of Plaintiffs Both Dated August 18, 2009

E.D.N.Y.August 21, 2009

SuLLIvAN PAPAIN BLOCK MCGRATH & CANNAv0 RC. 20 BROADWAY • NEW YORK • NEW YCRK 0271 TELEPHONE: (212) 732q0p0 FACSIMILE: (212) 266-4141 SPBMC-NY@TnalLaw I .com www.TrialLawl.com Robert G. Sullisan Marie Ng Erie K. Sehssari icfle B BrornEld Nicholas Papam Eleni Collinas Mar Anne Walling Wendell Y. Tong Michael N Block David J. Dean Eliiabeth Montesano Benmin J \oh Christopher T McGrath Hugh M. Turk Matthew J. Jones Terrenee L. Tarvcr Vito A. Cannavo Albert B, Aquila PLEASE REPLY TO: Deanne M. DiBlasi Michael J Wells John F. Nash Brian J. Shoot Beth N. Jablon Noemi Puntier Frank V. Floriani Andrea J. Carbo New York Cit Office Liza A Milgrtm Clifford S Argintar Susan M. JatE Jocelyn F Lupetin Donte Mills Kcn’v A \icManus Christopher P Spina I homas J NieManus John M. Tomsky Herman Badillo George J. Pfiuger Hon. Joseph b. Giamhoi (ret.) Cou,iseI to the Firm Stephen C. Glasser AuguSt 2 1 , 2 009 0/ Counsel The Honorable Nicholas G, Garauf is United States District Judge Eastern District of New York United States Courthouse 225 Cadman Plaza East - Room 659 Brooklyn, New York 11201 Re: U.S.A. vs. City Civil Action No.: 07-cv-2067 (NGG)__(RLM) Dear Judge Garauf is: I am writing on behalf of proposed intervenor, the Uniformed Firefighters Association (“UFA’) , in response to the letters sent to the Court by counsel for the United States and counsel for the plaintiffs-intervenors (hereinafter collectively “plaintiffs’) , both dated August 18, 2009, expressing their views regarding the UFA’s motion to intervene as a party-defendant in the remedy phase of this matter. Those letters concede the right of the UFA to intervene in the remedy phase with regard to retroactive “competitive” seniority. The UFA’s request to intervene is solely for the purpose of protecting the rights of incumbent firefighters in connection with any remedy ordered or approved by the Court. As such, the UFA has no intention of re-litigating liability issues in this matter, nor opposing retroactive “benefits” seniority as defined by the August 18, 2009 letters. With regard to the comments by counsel about the merits of any opposition to the relief sought by plaintiffs, they will be addressed by the UFA during the remedy phase. Case 1:07-cv-02067-NGG -RLM Document 312 Filed 08/21/09 Page 1 of 2 Si’iiiv P\P\IN BLOCK McGnvrii & (\N-vo E.C. Honorable Nicholas C. Garauf is August 21, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Accordingly, the UFA submits that there is no opposition to its request for intervention in the remedy phase of this case to protect the competitive seniority rights of its members. Respectfully yours. SULLIVAN PAPAIN BLOCK McGRATH & CANNAVO P.C. By Mich’ael N. Block (MNB/0957) MNB: law cc: Magistrate Roanne L. Mann Service List (UF-068 518) Case 1:07-cv-02067-NGG -RLM Document 312 Filed 08/21/09 Page 2 of 2