DocketNumber: No. CV94 0141199 S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 1428-X
Judges: TOBIN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/7/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
On November 23, 1994, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action on the grounds of forum non conveniens and lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in opposition, however, the plaintiff's counsel at oral argument requested discovery to show the defendant's contacts with Connecticut. CT Page 1428-Y
"A motion to dismiss . . . `properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court.'" (Emphasis in original.) Gurliacci v. Mayer,
The defendant argues that it does not have sufficient contacts with Connecticut for the court to exercise jurisdiction.
"Either specific jurisdiction or general jurisdiction can satisfy the constitutional requirement of sufficient minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum. A state court will have specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant whenever the defendant has purposefully directed [its] activities at residents of the forum . . . and the litigation [has] result[ed] from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities. . . . Alternatively, [e]ven when the cause of action does not arise out of or relate to the foreign corporation's activities in the forum state, due process is not offended by a State's subjecting the corporation to its in personam jurisdiction if the defendant has had continuous and systematic general business contacts with the state." (Citations omitted; emphasis deleted; internal quotations marks omitted.) Thomason v. Chemical Bank,
"Unlike the constitution, however, our long arm statute [General Statutes § 33-411] permits the exercise of jurisdiction over only those cases that `arise out of' a defendant's forum contacts." Id., 290. Section "33-411(c)1 directs us to inquire not only into the various elements of the plaintiff's cause of action, spelled out in the various subparts of subsection (c), but also into the totality of contacts which the defendant may have with the forum . . . . [I]n enacting § 33-411(c) . . . the legislature intended to exercise its full constitutional power over foreign corporations falling within one of the designated causes of action. Under [§ 33-411(c)] consistent with the constitutional demands of due process, it is the totality of the defendant's conduct and the connection with this state that must be considered, on a case by case basis, to determine whether the defendant could reasonably have anticipated being haled into court here." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 291. "Although § 33-411(c) CT Page 1428-Z . . . requires that the cause of action `arise out of' a defendant's contacts with this state, it does not require that the cause of action and the contacts be causally connected." Id., 292.
From the evidence provided it is not possible for the court to determine the contacts the defendant has with Connecticut, nor to determine whether the plaintiff's cause of action falls under one of the subparts of § 33-411(c). Therefore, the plaintiff should be permitted to conduct discovery relating to the defendant's contacts with this state, and that this motion may be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing as required by Standard Tallow Corp. v. Jowdy,
The defendant also argues that the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant owns the hotel in question; however, that issue does not relate to jurisdiction, but rather to the defendant's liability, and therefore, is more properly addressed on a motion to strike or a motion for summary judgment.
The defendant further maintains that the plaintiff's action should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum of non conveniens. The Supreme Court stated in Picketts v. International Playtex,Inc.,
Accordingly, given the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiffs' choice of forum, the plaintiff's action should not be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
RICHARD J. TOBIN, JUDGE