DocketNumber: No. CV96-0252482S
Citation Numbers: 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 5944, 17 Conn. L. Rptr. 447
Judges: SILBERT, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/29/1996
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The plaintiff has given the court no authority for the granting of a prejudgment remedy independent of a concurrent civil action. The only civil action regarding this case was a separate and independent action, now concluded, ordering the defendant to proceed with arbitration in this attorney's fee dispute. Yellin v. Premier Development, No. CV93-0704598S (April 25, 1994, Satter, J.) is inapposite. That case apparently involved a claim for monies due under a contract, which action was accompanied by an application for a prejudgment remedy. The contract in question included an arbitration provision, and there was an application to stay the Superior Court proceedings while the arbitration took place. In that limited context, Judge Satter found that it was appropriate to grant a prejudgment remedy in connection with the pending civil action, even though the issues underlying that action were going to be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation.
This is not that case. There is no civil action pending to which this prejudgment remedy may apply. The provisions of General Statutes § 52-278, et seq., have not been complied with, and the plaintiff is therefore not entitled to judgment.
For the above reasons, judgment will enter in favor of the defendant.
Jonathan E. Silbert, Judge