DocketNumber: No. X01CV00-0162973S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2195
Judges: HODGSON, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 2/8/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
None of the movants claims that the City has in fact brought a quiet title action in any prior proceeding. They assert, rather, that they and the City are parties in other prior suits and that the City could raise the quiet title action in those suits as a cross claim or counterclaim. Eight suits involving claims for payment for construction of the ice rink have been transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket.
The City has responded that 1) the motions to dismiss were not timely filed and therefore cannot be adjudicated on the merits and 2) that the prior pending action doctrine bars only the repetition of the same claims, not later suits raising different claims. The City further observes that none of the other cases include all of the parties that have filed mechanics' liens, and that a single quiet title action is superior to the assertion of separate claims to quiet title against various lienors in multiple cases.
I. Are the motions barred as untimely?
Except for motions raising issues of in personam jurisdiction (which must be filed within thirty days of filing an appearance, pursuant to Practice Book §
Conn. Gen. Stat. §
The City has not asserted that a motion for default against any of the movants has been decided, nor that a judgment has entered upon any default. Accordingly, the motions to dismiss, though filed beyond the CT Page 2197 time allowed by Practice Book §
II. Does the Prior Pending Action Doctrine Apply?
The prior pending action doctrine permits the court to dismiss a second case that raises issues currently pending before the court. "The pendency of a prior suit of the same character, between the same parties, brought to obtain the same end or object, is at common law, good cause for abatement. It is so, because there cannot be any reason or necessity for bringing the second, and, therefore, it must be oppressive and vexatious." Halpern v. Board of Education, supra,
A court faced with a claim of prior pending action "must examine the pleadings to ascertain whether the actions were virtually alike . . . and whether they are brought to adjudicate the same underlying rights." (Emphasis in original, internal citations omitted.) Sandvig v. A.Debreuil Sons, Inc., supra,
The movants have not alleged that the City has filed "virtually identical" pleadings in any other case in which they are parties. Instead, they allege that the City could file its action to quiet title in counterclaims in some of those cases. The movants have identified no case in which an action was dismissed because of prospective, rather than actual pleadings in a prior action. None of the other cases mentioned by the movants includes all twenty-seven parties that have been named in the instant action as having filed mechanics' liens.
The Supreme Court ruled in Halpern v. Board of Education, supra,
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons stated above, the court denies the motions to dismiss.
Beverly J. Hodgson CT Page 2198 Judge of the Superior Court