DocketNumber: No. CV 99-0423267
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 2672
Judges: THOMPSON, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/12/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The apportionment defendant, Keefe, has moved to dismiss the apportionment complaint as it was not sewed within 120 days of the return day specified in the plaintiff's original complaint as required by C.G.S. §
Keefe alleges that the 120 day requirement is mandatory and not directory and cites an overwhelming majority of Superior Court decision to that effect. Such cases also hold that failure to comply with the 120 day requirement deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff, on the other hand argues that the 120 day time limit set forth in §
This court agrees with the majority of courts which hold that the plain language §
The apportionment defendant, Keefe, also moves to dismiss the direct claim made by the plaintiff against it in an amended complaint and request to amend dated October 22, 1999 and filed on October 25, 1999. This direct claim was filed within the 2 year statute of limitations contained in C.G.S. §
Essentially, Keefe claims that since the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over it to begin with, the direct claim by the plaintiff must also fail for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The court disagrees with Keefe's argument and agrees with the analysis of the plaintiff contained in her supplemental brief dated March 11, 2002. The plaintiff's direct claim against Keefe was within the 2 year statute of limitations for negligence actions and within the 60 days for asserting a direct claim against an apportionment defendant as noted above.
The apportionment defendant, Keefe, argues that the plaintiff should have determined that the apportionment complaint was untimely and brought her claim against it by service of a summons and complaint rather than a direct claim in the pending action. However, in making this argument, Keefe is contesting personal jurisdiction rather than subject matter jurisdiction. Such being the case, Keefe was required by Practice Book §
Therefore, the motion to dismiss of the defendant T. Keefe and Sons, is granted as to the apportionment complaint of the defendant MJM, and denied as to the third count of the plaintiff's complaint alleging a direct action against it.
Thompson, J. CT Page 2674