Updated at 9:30 p.m.

The plaintiff's Dec. 12 motion to dimiss certain claims in their case has been added to the gallery of documents that accompanies this article.

East Haven Patch will continue to provide updates to this story as additional information becomes available.

Updated at 8 p.m.

Two separate requests — one filed by the plaintiffs and one filed by the defense — in the federal lawsuit alleging several East Haven Police officers violated the civil rights of Latino residents could, if granted, result in three of those officers being removed as defendants in the case.

According to documents filed in the case by the defense (which are posted in the gallery that accompanies this article), on Dec. 12 the plaintiffs filed a motion "to dismiss certain claims" made in their original lawsuit's filing, because one of the 10 plaintiffs in the case, Yadanny Garcia, "has chosen not to continue to pursue his claims in this case."

If the plaintiffs' motion is granted by the court, it would result in two of the East Haven Police officers named in the case — Sgt. Edward Lennon and Officer Michael Sorbo — being dropped as defendants in the suit.

But the officers' defense attorney, James Tallberg of the West Hartford-based firm Karsten & Tallberg, filed an objection to that motion on Dec. 16, requesting that, in addition to Lennon and Sorbo, a third East Haven officer named in the suit, Sgt. Frank Montagna, also be dropped from the case "because the allegations against him are identical to the claims made against Sgt. Lennon and Officer Sorbo."

Although the lawsuit as a whole is based upon five separate incidents, Tallberg states in his request that Lennon, Sorbo and Montagna were named as defendants solely based on one incident and the testimony of Yadanny Garcia.

According to Tallberg, Garcia originally testified that he was assaulted and injured by East Haven Police Officer Jason Zullo — with Montagna, Lennon and Sorbo nearby — during an incident on Aug. 8, 2009 that resulted in Garcia's arrest for DUI.

"Plaintiffs have not alleged that Sgt. Montagna, Sgt. Lennon or Officer Sorbo actually used any force against Mr. Garcia," Tallberg stated in his request to the court. "Instead, plaintiffs' claim against these three defendants is limited to an alleged failure to intervene during this one incident on August 8, 2009."

But with Garcia removing himself and his testimony from the case,  Tallberg insists all three officers, and not just Lennon and Sorbo, be removed as defendants in the case because the testimony against them is "demonstrably false."

Tallberg points to a DMV hearing related to the Aug. 8, 2009 incident that resulted in a ruling in favor of the "issues of credibility" regarding the testimony of East Haven Police officers Zullo, Montagna and Lennon, and that they had probable cause to arrest Garcia (that ruling is included in the documentation posted with this article).

"Although plaintiffs have not admitted, and probably won't, why they are abandoning Mr. Garcia's claims, the record should reflect that it is because Mr. Garcia's claims are false and he is not a credible witness," Tallberg wrote in his objection to the court.

"Plaintiffs, and their cadre of counselors, should have realized before they filed this lawsuit and defamed these law enforcement officers, that Mr. Garcia is not a credible witness and his story is false. Give this factual background, Sgt. Montagna is entitled to these same dismissal with prejudice that plaintiffs see for Sgt. Lennon and Officer Sorbo. After plaintiffs' attempt at character assassination, Sgt. Montagna is entitled to at least that much," he wrote.

Tallberg told East Haven Patch earlier this evening that he did not have much to add regarding a comment on the case's recent developments.

"The record speaks for itself," Tallberg wrote in an email. "Mr. Garcia’s false claim never should have been filed in the first place."

David Rosen, Yale law school and lead attorney for the plaintiffs in this case, did not immediately return a request for documentation and comment for this article. 

East Haven Patch will continue to update this story as more information becomes available.

Updated at 5:45 p.m.

Attorney James Tallberg, of the West Harford-based law firm Karsten & Tallberg, has passed along the series of documents related to his recent motion related to the request to remove three of the East Haven Police officers named in the civil lawsuit alleging a dozen officers mistreaed Latino residents.

Those documents have been posted in the gallery that accompanies this article.

East Haven Patch will continue to update this story as more details and information becomes available.

Original Story

Motions filed in the federal civil rights lawsuit that accuses 12 East Haven Police officers of discriminating against and mistreating Latino residents could result in three of the officers being removed as named defendents in the case due to questions that have been raised regarding the veracity of one of the accuser's testimony, according to a New Haven Register report.

The story reports that one of 10 plaintiffs in the lawsuit wants to be removed from the case, and a defense attorney for the East Haven officers said it is because the man's claims "are demonstrably false."

If the U.S District judge heading the case grants the attorneys' requests — separate motions to dismiss by the attorney representing the plaintiffs and the attorny defending the East Haven officers — that could mean East Haven Sgt. Ed Lennon, Sgt Frank Montagna and Officer Michael Sorbo may have their names removed from the civil rights lawsuit.

This news about the civil rights case comes on the heels of Monday's release of the U.S Department of Justice's findings that East Haven Police "engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Latinos in violation of the Constitution and federal law," according to the results of the department's two-year civil investigation.

East Haven Patch will continue to update this story as more information becomes available.

(Editor's note: This article was edited at 5:05 p.m. to clarify that two separate motions to dismiss were filed — one by the defense and one by the plaintiffs — in this case, and not just the defense as initially reported.)