DocketNumber: No. 66755
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 8197
Judges: ARENA, J.
Filed Date: 8/16/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Phillip L. Steele for plaintiff.
No appearance for defendant. The defendants now move this court to dismiss the plaintiff's case, on the ground that the plaintiff fraudulently procured venue through the use of a false and erroneous address in the original summons filed in this action. Although the summons listed the plaintiff's address as "21 Ironworks Road, Clinton, CT," the defendants have subsequently learned through discovery that the plaintiff actually lived in Madison at that time. The defendants now seek dismissal of the plaintiff's action as a sanction for the alleged misrepresentations and resultant fraud upon the court.
Based on the stipulation of the parties submitted at oral argument this court finds that the plaintiff was not a resident at 21 Ironworks Road in Clinton and therefore was not a resident of Middlesex County at the time this action was filed. He was at that time a resident of Madison and also remained a resident of Madison at least up to the time of his deposition. General Statutes §
The defendants have chosen strong language in their characterization of the plaintiff's actions, and have requested an equally powerful sanction from this court. "Courts should be reluctant to employ the sanction of dismissal except as a last resort." Fox v. First Bank,
While the laying of venue in Middlesex County may have had certain tactical advantages for the plaintiff in this action, the court does not find by clear and convincing evidence that this was a fraud upon the court. However, given the circumstances this court is compelled to grant the alternative sanction requested by the defendants, namely that the case be transferred to the judicial district of New Haven pursuant to General Statutes §
Accordingly, the defendants' motions to dismiss are denied, and the case is hereby ordered transferred to the judicial district of New Haven. This court will also rule on the following outstanding discovery motions in order to complete the file as much as possible before transfer:
#181: Defendant Ward's Motion for Extension of Time is denied in accordance with this court's earlier ruling on May 17, 1994.
#186: Plaintiff's Motion for Order of Compliance is granted; the motion for entry of default and for costs and fees is denied.
Finally, this court concurs with the defendants' concerns about the possible introduction of elements of a mental distress claim despite removal of the express counts from the plaintiff's amended complaint. Accordingly, the court will order the plaintiff to comply with Defendant Fabricant's First Request for Admissions dated April 11, 1994, as a method of resolving this potential conflict. The plaintiff is hereby ordered to comply with the defendant's First Request for Admissions within thirty days of the date of this order.
ARENA, J. CT Page 8200