Pullman & Comley School Law attorney Mark Sommaruga was quoted in "Nonnewaug High Referendum Case," a summary about a lawsuit regarding the rationality of a Region 14 referendum authorizing a $63.8 renovation of Nonnewaug High School.
"The Waterbury plaintiffs should not get two bites at the apple, simply because they sat back and (selectively) refused to join litigation that concerned the exact same issues and claims that they raise in this case," Sommaruga wrote in his brief. "It makes no sense for the judicial system to expend the time and resources necessary for the resolution of a matter only to have more or less the exact same case litigated again before a different judge in a court house approximately 20 miles away."
Sommaruga argued that the plaintiffs in the Waterbury case share the same legal interests as the plaintiffs in the Litchfield case.
"While the plaintiffs may assert that their interests in this matter and the interests of the Litchfield plaintiffs are not sufficiently aligned, upon closer inspection it becomes clear that the interests of both sets of plaintiffs are fundamentally the same," Sommaruga said. "Both cases center on the same disputed issue and in both cases the plaintiffs were concerned with the vindication of the same basic legal right. This is a battle over alleged public grievances, not particularized private grievances."
To read the full article, please click here.