DocketNumber: No. CV940138490S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12788, 13 Conn. L. Rptr. 208
Judges: KARAZIN, J.
Filed Date: 12/15/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
On September 13, 1994, WJMK filed a second motion for an extension of time within which to plead until October 3, 1994, which was not acted upon by the court. On September 13, 1994, Omega filed another motion for default against WJMK for failure to CT Page 12789 plead which the court denied on the ground that WJMK had filed a motion for an extension of time in which to plead. On October 3, 1994, Omega filed another motion for default against WJMK for failure to plead. Also on October 3, 1994, WJMK filed a motion to dismiss Omega's complaint on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over WJMK.
On October 19, 1994, Omega filed an objection to the motion to dismiss with a memorandum of law. The first ground for Omega's objection is that the motion to dismiss is not timely because it was not filed within 30 days of WJMK's appearance as required by Practice Book §§ 142 and 144. Supplemental memoranda were filed by both parties, at the request of this court, addressing only whether WJMK's motion to dismiss is timely and therefore, may be considered by this court.
Omega contends that WJMK's motion to dismiss is not timely because it was not filed within thirty days of WJMK's appearance in this action as required by Practice Book § 142. Omega further argues that the motions filed by WJMK requesting an extension of time within which to plead were not acted upon by the court and did not toll the 30 day period within which WJMK was required to file the motion to dismiss. WJMK argues that the court still has the discretion to grant a motion for an extension of time to plead or to consider a motion to dismiss and that preventing WJMK from raising the court's lack of personal jurisdiction will prevent it from raising it's constitutional due process claims.
Practice Book § 142 states in pertinent part that "[a]ny defendant, wishing to contest the court's jurisdiction, may do so even after having entered a general appearance, but must do so by filing a motion to dismiss within thirty days of filing an appearance." Furthermore, Practice Book § 144 provides that "[a]ny claim of lack of jurisdiction over the person . . . is waived if not raised by a motion to dismiss filed . . . within the time provided by Sec. 142."
In support of its argument that WJMK has waived its right to file the motion to dismiss because the motion is untimely, Omega relies upon Pickett v. T.A.C. Collections. Inc.,
Furthermore, Omega relies upon Ecsedy v. Jack Tar VillageResorts,
WJMK relies upon Signore v. Air Command ManufacturingIndustries, Inc., 7 CONN. L. RPTR. 533 (1992) (Katz, J.), in which the court held that the thirty day period following the defendant's appearance in which the defendant was permitted to file a motion to dismiss was tolled by the entering of a default against the defendant for failure to plead. The court recognized that during the time that the defendant was in default, it could "not properly file any pleadings or motions, other than an answer except by permission of the court. This included a motion to dismiss. " Id. The court held that the default that had entered on August 12, 1992, against the defendant for failure to plead had tolled the running of the thirty day period from the date of the defendant's appearance on August 4, 1992, in which the defendant could file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Practice Book § 142. Id.
Furthermore, in Signore the court further held that the thirty day period in which to file the motion did not resume until the default against the defendant was reopened, on September 28, 1992, and because the motion to dismiss was filed prior to September 28, 1992, the motion to dismiss was filed within the period required by Practice Book § 142. Id. The court stated that
[t]o deny the motion to dismiss based on a claim of late filing will deprive the defendant of an opportunity to raise constitutional CT Page 12791 due process claims. Section 6 of the Practice Book states that `these rules . . . will be interpreted liberally in any case where it shall be manifest that a strict adherence to them will work surprise or injustice.' The court is of the opinion that to deprive the defendant of an opportunity to be heard on a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction, based upon the history of these pleadings, will manifestly be unjust."
Id.; see also Tolland Bank v. Larson,
WJMK also relies upon Friedlander v. Kwartin,
In the present action, WJMK's motion to dismiss is not timely because it was not filed within thirty days of WJMK's appearance on July 15, 1994, and therefore, WJMK waived its claim of lack of personal jurisdiction. See Practice Book § 142; Pickett v. T.A.C.Collections, Inc., supra,
Accordingly, the court denies the motion to dismiss on the grounds that it is not timely filed.