DocketNumber: No. CV X01 0165231 S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 13029, 33 Conn. L. Rptr. 237
Judges: HODGSON, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 10/17/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
This court had scheduled oral argument on the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the above-captioned case for the afternoon of June 4, 2002. The case was commenced in December 2000, and had thus been pending for seventeen months before the date set for oral argument on this potentially dispositive motion. A few hours before the scheduled argument, the plaintiff filed a withdrawal of the case.
The plaintiff then filed another lawsuit based on the same transactions and events, commencing suit in the judicial district of New Haven. The defendants have moved to restore the withdrawn case to the docket, noting that the effect of the plaintiffs actions will be to delay the resolution of the dispute, whether that resolution comes by motion or by trial.
As the plaintiff points out in its objection to the defendants' motion, its conduct is authorized by Conn. Gen. Stat. §
Since the plaintiff withdrew his complaint before any hearing on the merits, the statute allowed him to do so at will, with no need for leave of the court and no recognition of the potential burdens imposed on opposing parties by a withdrawal. The statute contains no provision that such withdrawal is with prejudice to refiling. The Appellate Court has ruled that "The right of a plaintiff to withdraw his action before a hearing on the merits, as allowed by §
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by contrast, provide that any withdrawal other than as part of the resolution of the case requires leave of the court and may be allowed only on the basis that it will not be refiled, that is, that the withdrawal is "with prejudice." Rule
The plaintiff's withdrawal of this suit was authorized by the provisions of §
The court expresses no opinion on the viability of the new suit that was commenced in another judicial district. That case has been transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket and any contentions will undoubtedly be pursued by appropriate motions.
Conclusion
The motion to restore the above-captioned case to the docket is denied for the foregoing reasons. ___________________ Beverly Hodgson Date Judge of the Superior Court CT Page 13031
[EDITORS' NOTE: This page is blank.] CT Page 13032