Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Goldblatt Marquette & Rashba PC

Firm Juris No. 021607 · Connecticut · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records

What this is. A data-driven scouting report on how this firm litigates contested divorce and custody cases. Every number below is computed from the firm's own filing history across the public CT family-court docket. This is a litigation-pattern analysis of public records — not legal advice, and not a claim about any individual case. Patterns describe tendencies, not guarantees.

This is general information about public litigation patterns — not legal advice, and not a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.

Snapshot

Bottom line: a New Haven-centered firm that prevails on most of what it puts before judges it appears before regularly. The defining features of its record are volume, the procedural docket, and familiarity with its home bench — context that helps explain the patterns described below.

How they litigate (the style)

Three rates define the signature:

• Continuance pressure — 1.02 continuances per case (97 total). The firm manages the timeline as a matter of routine: more than one continuance for every case it touches. The pace of the case is a recurring feature of how this firm litigates.
• Discovery-active practice — 0.67 discovery motions per case (64 total). Discovery is a frequent locus of activity, with motion practice around the process itself appearing well before the merits are reached.
• Contempt-active practice — 0.55 contempt motions per case (52 total). Contempt motions are a routine part of this firm's toolkit rather than a rare last resort. Allegations that an order was violated are a common feature; contemporaneous records of compliance are what address such allegations.

Layer in 0.47 modification motions per case and 0.39 counsel-fee requests per case, and the picture is a firm that keeps the case moving on multiple fronts at once — clock, discovery, compliance, and money.

The filing volume — and how it is distributed

Across all cases, this firm's side puts ~15.25 filings on the docket per case. And the volume is not evenly distributed:

• Filing volume is higher against unrepresented opponents, not lower. Against a pro-se opponent: 16.06 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 14.36/case. The party least equipped to respond tends to face the heavier paper load — a self-represented spouse encounters roughly 12% more filings than one with a lawyer.
• The heaviest volumes on record: Langley v. Langley (NNH-FA24-6141314-S) — 42 filings; Diaz v. Diaz (NNH-FA20-6103037-S) — 39; Riccardi v. Enright (NNH-FA22-6127460-S) — 38 (opponent self-represented).
• Against self-represented opponents specifically: Riccardi v. Enright (NNH-FA22-6127460-S) — 38 filings; Cherry v. Cherry (UWY-FA13-4030979-S) — 34; Silveira v. Silveira (FBT-FA16-5032021-S) — 34. Dozens of filings in cases where the opposing party had no attorney.

For a self-represented party, this asymmetry is the most salient feature of the data: the heavier-load pattern is something to be aware of, and the procedural-options section below describes the tools and rules that relate to it.

Their motion playbook (top filings)

GAL strategy

• A GAL appears in 9.5% of their cases (9 of 95), and the firm's docket shows GAL-appointment activity in 52 instances. When custody is genuinely in play, a guardian ad litem may enter as a third decision-maker.
• The data does not show this firm repeatedly pairing with the same small set of guardians; GAL use here is best read as a rate, not a recurring rotation.

Context: GAL appointment orders can address scope, budget, and a reporting deadline. An unscoped GAL appointment is, as a general matter, an open-ended cost and an open-ended variable; the terms of the appointment are something the court sets in the order.

The bench

They appear before Hon. Jane Grossman (29 rulings) more than any other judge, then Griffin (17), Armata (14), Ficeto (12), and Goodrow (10). Their 80% contested-motion win rate reflects, in part, familiarity — repeated appearances before the same New Haven judges, with knowledge of those judges' preferences, calendar habits, and standing orders. As a general matter, a self-represented party's information gap on a given judge's standing orders and motion practice narrows as that judge's published practices are reviewed.

What to expect — and your procedural options

The data above describes a motion-active firm that manages the clock and litigates frequently on its home bench. The following points pair each observed pattern with neutral, descriptive information about the procedural tools and rules that relate to it. None of this is a recommendation about what to do in any specific case.

1. The clock. This firm averages 1.02 continuances per case — managing the timeline is routine. A continuance is a request that can be opposed on the record. Where a party wants a matter heard sooner, a Motion to Advance is the procedural tool that asks the court to do so. These are the standard mechanisms by which the pace of a case is contested.

1. Discovery. With 0.67 discovery motions per case, discovery is a frequent locus of this firm's activity. As a general matter, responding to discovery completely and on time is what removes a non-compliance basis for sanctions, and a documented record of timely responses is what establishes compliance. Litigation conduct, including discovery compliance, is one factor courts may consider in fee disputes.

1. Contempt. At 0.55 contempt motions per case — including 15 post-judgment and 10 pendente lite contempt motions — contempt motions are a routine feature of this firm's practice. A contempt motion alleges that a court order was violated; contemporaneous proof of compliance (payments, exchanges, communications) is what responds to such an allegation on the documents.

1. Counsel fees. They request counsel fees at 0.39 per case. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). The volume of motions and continuances generated in a case is part of the litigation-conduct record that the statute makes relevant.

1. Emergency custody and the pro-se load. They filed 13 emergency ex parte custody applications, and the data shows 16.06 filings/case against self-represented opponents vs. 14.36 against represented ones. An ex parte custody order is, by its nature, temporary; under Connecticut practice it is set for a prompt return hearing at which it is contested. For a self-represented party, the heavier-load pattern is the salient context here.

1. The case record. This firm's edge is reflected in winning the process before a familiar bench (80% of decided motions granted); this firm's volume is its defining feature. A separate, neutral observation from the data: outcomes in this dataset are recorded at the level of individual decided motions and the merits questions (custody, support, division), and the docket shows that a high filing count is not the same as a favorable outcome on the merits.

Methodology & limits

Computed from public CT Judicial Branch docket entries and party rosters (parties → filing-side attribution → motion/outcome tally). "Win rate" = Granted ÷ (Granted + Denied) on the firm's own filed motions where the docket records an outcome; many entries record no outcome and are excluded. Marker counts use keyword matching on docket event descriptions and may include related sub-types. Firm-name aggregation follows the docket's recorded firm name (the source truncates long names). Patterns reflect aggregate history, not the conduct of any one attorney or the merits of any one case.