DocketNumber: No. CV 95 070 57 36
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 6266
Judges: BERGER, J.
Filed Date: 6/29/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Introduction and Factual Background
On March 9, 1995, the plaintiffs, George A. Tomasso, individually, and George A. Tomasso Construction Corporation, a Connecticut Corporation involved in highway construction, CT Page 6267 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as "GAT"), filed a complaint returnable April 11, 1995 seeking injunctive relief against the defendant, William J. Burns in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Transportation (hereinafter, "DOT") alleging that while GAT was the lowest responsible bidder for four construction contracts, the DOT awarded them to other bidders. GAT alleges that as a result of the defendant's violation of General Statutes §
On April 20, 1995, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss maintaining that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity and further, the plaintiffs have alleged nothing that would justify breaching the doctrine. Additionally, the defendant contends that as an unsuccessful bidder for a public contract, GAT lacks sufficient standing to challenge the award without allegations of fraud, corruption, or favoritism.
On May 10, 1995, while this motion was pending, the plaintiffs filed a revised complaint pursuant to P.B. § 175 in which it further alleged that the defendant's intention to offer the contracts to other bidders was based on favoritism. On May 19, 1995, the defendant filed its objection to the plaintiffs' amendment claiming that the court was required to act on the pending motion to dismiss before entertaining any other motion in the action. See, Baldwin Piano Organ Co. v. Blake,
General Statutes §
The plaintiff may amend any defect, mistake or informality in the writ, complaint, declaration or petition, and insert new counts in the complaint or declaration, which might have been originally inserted therein, without costs, within the first thirty days after the return day and at any time afterwards on the payment of costs at the discretion of the court; but, after any such amendment, the defendant shall have a reasonable time to answer the same.
P.B. § 175 provides that:
The plaintiff may amend any defect, mistake or informality in the writ, complaint or petition and insert new counts in the complaint, which might have been originally inserted therein, without costs, during the first thirty days after the return day.
In Franchi v Farmholme, Inc.,
In Sheehan v. Zoning Commission, supra,
This same result was also reached in Sleeping GiantAssociates. LTD v. Zikorus, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New Haven, docket No. 535276 (July 16, 1993, Riddle, J.), in which the plaintiff attempted to amend its complaint within thirty days of the return date pursuant to P.B. § 175 and General Statutes §
In accordance with the above discussed cases, the objection to the motion to amend is overruled.
Berger, J.