DocketNumber: No. 385318
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 2639
Judges: HALE, J.
Filed Date: 3/11/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
In the first count of the original complaint, the plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment as to a guaranty agreement allegedly signed by the defendant in his individual capacity on May 24, 1979, and a subsequent related agreement CT Page 2640 signed by the defendant on November 18, 1981, concerning property leased to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that, pursuant to the terms of these two agreements, the defendant unconditionally guaranteed the full performance and observance of the lease terms and assumed primary liability in the event that any governmental action were taken against the plaintiff for the investigation and remediation of groundwater pollution on the premises. The plaintiff alleges that both the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took action against it for groundwater contamination on the premises. This governmental action included a listing of the premises by the EPA on the National Priorities List (NIL). Through the NIL, which was established by the EPA to administer the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Act [CIRCLE],
In the second count of the original complaint, the plaintiff claims that the defendant must indemnify the plaintiff, pursuant to both the lease and the guarantee agreement, for all costs, past and present, incurred in investigating and remediating the pollution, as well as all costs incurred by plaintiff in relation to the NIL listing. In the third count of the original complaint, the plaintiff alleges that pursuant to General Statutes
The proposed amended complaint contains four counts, as does the original complaint. The causes of action in the proposed amended complaint are for declaratory judgment, contractual indemnity, compensation pursuant to General Statutes
In paragraphs 48 through 52 of count one of the proposed amended complaint, the plaintiff specifically alleges that it may incur costs if ordered by the DPA, pursuant to the provisions of CIRCLE, to investigate and remediate the contamination on the property. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that it may incur costs as a result of actions by nongovernmental third parties as to the contamination of the land. In paragraph 63 of count one of the proposed amended complaint, the plaintiff specifically alleges that it may incur future costs, for which the defendant should be responsible, in the investigation and remediation of the contamination of the property. In paragraph 69 of the second count of the proposed amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that pursuant to the lease and the guaranty agreement, the defendant is liable for past, present and future attorney's fees and legal costs. The allegations of the third and fourth counts of the proposed amended complaint are substantially the same as those of the original complaint.
In the original prayer for relief, the plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that the defendant's actions breached the terms of the lease and that the defendant is responsible for all expenses incurred by the plaintiff in investigating and remediating the groundwater contamination on the premises. The plaintiff requests an injunction restraining the defendant from "transferring his assets in liquid funds and real property pending the completion of the EPA's feasibility study." In addition, the plaintiff requests compensatory damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs, exoneration, and indemnity. In the prayer for relief contained in the proposed amended complaint, the court finds that the plaintiff requests substantially the same relief as it requested in the original complaint.
In his objection to the plaintiff's request for leave to amend, the defendant argues that the proposed amended complaint would add new and improper allegations and seek relief which differs significantly from that requested in the original complaint. In addition, the defendant argues that the proposed amended complaint "seeks to supplement the allegations with evidence that was available to the [plaintiff] at the time the Complaint was drafted or shortly thereafter." [Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff's Request for Leave to Amend complaint, p. 2]. Specifically, the defendant argues that the plaintiff has added allegations that CT Page 2642 the government may bring an action against the plaintiff under CIRCLE, that there exists the possibility of legal action against the plaintiff from non-governmental third parties, and that the plaintiff should be reimbursed for all future costs incurred by the plaintiff in the investigation and remediation of the groundwater pollution on the premises.
In support of its request for leave to amend, the plaintiff argues that the proposed amendments are merely proper expansions or amplifications of the existing counts by which the defendant will not be prejudiced. In addition, the plaintiff argues that the proposed amendment will not delay the trial because extensive discovery has already taken place, with more scheduled to take place before the trial date. Finally the plaintiff argues that the present action is essentially a contract action, and remains such in the proposed amended complaint.
Practice Book 176 states, in pertinent part, that "[t]he court may restrain such amendments so far as may be necessary to compel the parties to join issue in a reasonable time for trial." Practice Book 176(c). The decision to grant or deny a request for leave to amend is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Tedesco v. Julius C. Pagano, Inc.,
In deciding a request for leave to amend, "[t]he essential tests are whether the ruling of the court will work an injustice to either the plaintiff or the defendant and whether the granting of the motion will unduly delay a trial." Smith v. New Haven,
In addition, "a party may properly amplify or expand what has already been alleged in support of a cause of action, provided the identity of the cause of action remains essentially the same." Patterson v. Szabo Food Service of New York, Inc., supra, 183.
The court finds that the plaintiff in its proposed amended complaint merely seeks to amplify or expand what has already been alleged. Therefore, the court overrules the defendant's objection to the plaintiff's request for leave to amend.
Hale, J.
Beckman v. JALICH HOMES, INC. , 190 Conn. 299 ( 1983 )
Freccia v. Martin , 163 Conn. 160 ( 1972 )
Johnson v. Toscano , 144 Conn. 582 ( 1957 )
Saphir v. Neustadt , 177 Conn. 191 ( 1979 )
Tedesco v. Julius C. Pagano, Inc. , 182 Conn. 339 ( 1980 )