DocketNumber: No. CV99-9416 S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4710, 26 Conn. L. Rptr. 601
Judges: RESHA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/15/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Appearances were filed for defendant Bunnell, on June 24, 1999, and for defendants Sorley, on July 12, 1999.
The complaint was filed in the Bridgeport Judicial District, Housing Session, which prompted a motion to dismiss or transfer by defendants Sorley, claiming improper venue. That court (Cocco, J.) ordered the case transferred to the Judicial District of Danbury for full disposition.
On November 26, 1999, plaintiffs filed a motion for default against all defendants as a result of their failure to file a responsive pleading to plaintiffs' complaint (motions dated November 24, 1999). On December 2, 1999, Bunnell filed a request to revise the plaintiffs' complaint (dated December 1, 1999).1(It should be noted that defendants Sorley filed an answer and special defenses on December 3, 1999, dated December 2, 1999.)
On January 27, 1999, defendant Bunnell filed a motion for default requesting the court to enter defaults against the plaintiffs as a result of their failure to file a responsive pleading to the December 1, 1999 request to revise. That motion was granted by the court on February 1, 2000 as the plaintiffs filed no objection to said request to revise within thirty days, as provided in Connecticut Practice Book §
The plaintiffs then filed an objection to motion for default on February 2, 2000 (dated January 29, 2000), alleging that since plaintiffs' motion for default for failure to plead was filed prior to the filing of defendant's request to revise, the only pleading defendant could have filed was an answer to the complaint.
The court then scheduled a hearing to provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to argue their motion, which the court heard on February 22, 2000.3 The defendant Bunnell offered that he was mainly interested in securing a revision of the complaint in accordance with his request to revise. The plaintiffs were adamant, however, that they had no obligation to revise their complaint as the filing of their motion for default was before CT Page 4712 the filing of the request to revise.
The issue presented to this court is whether a motion for default for failure to plead is effective upon filing or effective upon action, either by a clerk or a judge.
The plaintiffs have failed to provide the court with any authority for its position that filing of a motion for default equates to the granting of a motion for default, or that a motion for default is effective upon filing.
Practice Book §
In New Milford Savings Bank v. Jajer,
A search of Connecticut case law has failed to reveal any case in which filing alone served to grant the motion for default. As in Richards v. Trudeau,
Plaintiffs' reliance on the cases cited in their brief is misplaced. Whalen v. Ives,
The flaw in plaintiffs' argument is that their motion for default was not acted upon prior to the defendant's filing of his request to revise. As such, plaintiffs' motion was not granted prior to the filing of the request to revise. The request to revise was therefore a permissible pleading.
The plaintiffs chose to not respond to defendant's request to revise. They could have answered it or objected to all or part of it. The plaintiffs were put on notice by defendant Bunnell's motion for default dated January 25, 2000 that their decision in this regard could be fatal to the action filed against him. Defendant certified notice to plaintiffs on the face of the motion, and the parties appeared at short calendar to argue their positions.4
For the above reasons, the decision of the court to grant defendant Bunnell "s motion for default will not be modified; plaintiffs' objection to the granting of said motion is overruled; and the plaintiffs are defaulted as to the defendant Bunnell.
Robert T. Resha, Judge