DocketNumber: No. CV91 035942
Citation Numbers: 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 5426, 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 877
Judges: <footnote_body>[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]</footnote_body> McGRATH, JUDGE
Filed Date: 6/17/1992
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On June 19, 1991, the plaintiff, Milford Hospital, Inc., filed a one-count collection action against the defendant, Ravenna Ukeles, seeking payment for care and services provided to the defendant by the plaintiff hospital. By papers filed December 13, 1991, Ukeles moved to implead Federal Employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield as third party defendant. Ukeles attached to her motion a copy of her two-count third party complaint against Federal Employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and a copy of a proposed order granting Ukeles' motion to implead leaving blank spaces for the court to fill in the date by which service was to be made upon Federal Employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the return date.
The court, Flynn, J., granted Ukeles' motion and ordered Ukeles to serve a copy of her third party complaint on Federal Employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield by January 30, 1992, with a return date of February 11, 1992. CT Page 5427
On February 19, 1992, Federal Employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield (the "third party defendant") filed an appearance. On March 5, 1992, the third party defendant filed a timely motion to dismiss the third party complaint on the grounds of insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process, accompanied by a memorandum of law and an affidavit. The third party defendant asserts that, contrary to the court's order, the third party complaint was not served until February 6, 1992, less than twelve days prior to the return date of February 11, 1992 in violation of General Statutes
Ukeles did not file a memorandum in opposition to the third party defendant's motion to dismiss; instead, Ukeles filed a "Motion for Amendment By Right" seeking to amend the return date to February 25, 1992.
A motion to dismiss is the appropriate vehicle for challenging the court's jurisdiction. Practice Book 142; see Zizka v. Water Pollution Control Authority,
If a motion to dismiss does not seek to introduce facts outside of the record, it admits all facts well pleaded. Duguay v. Hopkins,
General Statutes
The third party defendant also claims that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., the party served, is not the statutory agent for, nor is it authorized to accept service on behalf of an entity known as "Federal Employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield, " which is named as the third party defendant in this case. The third party defendant has filed the affidavit of Janet Coderre in support of this contention. It is noted that Ukeles filed no memorandum of law in opposition to the third party defendant's motion to dismiss, nor did she present affidavits or any other evidence which would show that the party served, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc., is the statutory agent or otherwise authorized to accept service for "Federal Employees Blue Cross/Blue Shield" which Ukeles has named as the third party defendant in this action. It is therefore found that because the plaintiff has not filed anything to contest the third party defendant's claim, the court may look to the content of the affidavit submitted by the third party defendant "for determination of the jurisdictional issue." See Barde v. Board of Trustees, supra. It is therefore found that the court should also grant the third party defendant's motion to dismiss on this ground.
It is found that the third party defendant's motion to dismiss should be granted on both grounds asserted by the third party defendant. It is found that Ukeles' motion to amend her process to change the return date should be denied. CT Page 5429