Opposing-Counsel Playbook: Gunning Timothy Law Office Of LLC
Firm Juris No. 401674 · New Haven Judicial District, CT · Profile built from public Connecticut Judicial Branch docket records
Limited sample (43 contested cases) — treat rates as indicative, not definitive.
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
| Metric | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Contested cases (as P/D counsel) | 43 | A small-to-mid-volume contested-divorce practice |
| Home turf | New Haven (NNH): 40, then New Britain (HHB: 2), Waterbury (UWY: 1) | New Haven is overwhelmingly their court |
| Side they take | 31 plaintiff / 12 defendant | Strongly prefers to file first and set the agenda |
| Motions per case | 1.81 | A moderate motion load — they pick spots rather than carpet-bomb |
| Contested-motion win rate | 88% (28 granted vs 4 denied, of 32 decided) | When they take a motion to decision, they usually prevail |
| Busiest judge | Hon. Jane Grossman (10), then Goodrow (7), Griffin (6) | They appear before a consistent New Haven bench |
Bottom line: a New Haven-centric, plaintiff-side firm that files first, leans on continuances and contempt, and wins most contested motions it takes to decision. With a single attorney behind it and a limited sample, the firm's defining features are concentration and procedure rather than sheer volume.
How they litigate (the style)
The signature is agenda-setting + contempt pressure + clock control. Three tendencies stand out:
- They file first and drive the case. 31 of 43 cases are filed as plaintiff. Combined with the heavy New Haven concentration, this is a firm that sets the procedural tempo on home turf rather than reacting to the other side.
- Contempt is a core tool, not a last resort. Contempt markers appear in 42% of their cases (18 of 43), split across post-judgment and pendente lite. A common pattern is an allegation that the opposing party violated an order, used to build a "non-compliant party" record.
- Fee leverage rides alongside contempt. Counsel-fee markers also appear in 42% of cases (18 of 43). The pairing is the pressure point: the firm frequently asks the court to shift its litigation costs onto the opposing party.
Add continuances in 54% of cases (23 of 43) and the picture is clear: control the clock, pair contempt allegations with the opposing party, and keep the fee question live.
The filing barrage — and who gets it worst
Across all cases, the firm's side puts ~12.9 filings on the docket per case — a steady, sustained load rather than an overwhelming one. But it is not evenly distributed:
- They file more against unrepresented opponents. Against a pro-se opponent: 13.86 filings/case. Against a represented opponent: 11.07/case. The party least equipped to respond carries roughly 25% more paper.
- The heaviest barrages on record — all against self-represented opponents:
- Anastasio v. Buker (NNH-FA21-6113294-S) — 33 filings (pro se)
- Garcia v. Olivar Guerrero (NNH-FA20-6100683-S) — 29 filings (pro se)
- Bruneau v. Bruneau (NNH-FA22-6120581-S) — 28 filings (pro se)
- Urena v. Chungata (NNH-FA21-5049734-S) — 27 filings (pro se)
- Gutierrez v. Manosalvas (NNH-FA22-6124534-S) — 22 filings (pro se)
Every one of the firm's heaviest dockets is against someone with no lawyer. A self-represented party facing this firm fits the firm's heaviest-load profile — the section below describes the procedural tools and rules that bear on exactly that asymmetry.
Their motion playbook (top filings)
| Their move | Count | Translation |
|---|---|---|
| Motion for Continuance | 23 | Controls the clock |
| Motion for Contempt (Post-Judgment) | 7 | Puts the opposing party on defense, builds a "bad actor" record |
| Motion for Order | 5 | General-purpose pressure / agenda-setting |
| Motion for Contempt (Pendente Lite) | 4 | Same motion, pre-judgment |
| Motion for Order of Notice | 4 | Service / procedural setup |
| Objection to Motion | 4 | Blocks the opposing party's moves |
| Motion for Exclusive Use of Premises | 3 | Possession of the home as leverage |
GAL strategy
- No guardian ad litem appears in this firm's recorded cases (GAL-present rate: 0%). On the available sample, custody fights here do not run through a GAL the way they do at some contested-divorce shops.
- Because no repeat GAL pairings appear in the record, there is nothing to vet on that front. If a GAL is proposed in a case involving this firm, it is a new variable; appointment orders commonly define scope, budget, and a reporting deadline up front.
The bench
They appear most before Hon. Jane Grossman (10 rulings), then Hon. Karen Goodrow (7) and Hon. Christopher Griffin (6), with Kenefick, Dembo, and Rapillo behind them. Their high contested-motion grant rate is partly familiarity — a small firm appearing repeatedly before a consistent New Haven bench knows each judge's preferences and motion practice. That familiarity gap tends to narrow when a party becomes acquainted with the assigned judge's standing orders.
What to expect — and your procedural options
This is a focused, contempt-and-clock firm whose patterns center on the procedural "hooks" it reuses. The items below describe what the data shows and the procedural tools and rules that correspond to each pattern. They are descriptions of how the process works, not directions about what to do in any case.
- The agenda. They file first in 31 of 43 cases and set the tempo. Where a party is the defendant, pendente lite motions are the mechanism by which that party can place its own requested relief before the court, rather than the case proceeding solely on the moving party's items.
- The contempt pattern. Contempt allegations appear in 42% of their cases. A contempt motion turns on proof of non-compliance; contemporaneous documentation of compliance with each order — payments, exchanges, communications — is what a court weighs against such a motion. A contempt motion that fails on the documents affects the moving party's credibility with the bench it appears before regularly.
- The fee pattern. Counsel-fee requests appear in 42% of cases, frequently paired with contempt. In Connecticut, fee awards turn on need and litigation conduct (C.G.S. §46b-62). A party's own motion and continuance activity is part of the litigation-conduct record that bears on which side's costs the statute reaches.
- The clock. Continuances appear in 54% of cases — the firm's single most common motion (23 of them). Continuances can be opposed on the record. A Motion to Advance is the procedural tool a party may use to ask the court to hear a matter sooner.
- Decided motions. Only 32 motions in the whole sample reached a recorded outcome, and the firm prevailed in 88% of those. The takeaway from the data is that decided motions carry disproportionate weight in a sample this small — a single denial sits in a small decided-motion pool. Completeness and documentation are the features of motions that survive to a favorable decision.
- The merits. This firm's model leans on procedure — continuances, contempt, fee pressure. A short, documented, merits-focused record is the counterweight to a procedure-heavy approach; the substantive questions (custody, support, division) are where filing volume and clock management matter least.
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.