DocketNumber: No. CV01 018 6822
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 10166, 32 Conn. L. Rptr. 669
Judges: ADAMS, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 8/5/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The following facts not readily apparent from the file have been stipulated to by the parties. The Clerk's Office rescheduled the hearing of plaintiffs' application for January 24, 2002. On that day, at CT Page 10167 plaintiffs' request, and without objection by the defendants, the application was marked off and the parties agreed on a new hearing date of March 4, 2002. At the defendants' request and without objection by the plaintiffs the hearing was then rescheduled for March 11, 2002. The March 11 hearing was postponed at the request of the plaintiffs and without objection by the defendants. Plaintiffs then attempted to arrange a rescheduled hearing on a date agreeable to defendants. When this was unsuccessful plaintiffs requested the Clerk's Office on June 5, 2002 to set a new hearing date. On June 12, 2002 the Clerk's Office scheduled the hearing for July 15, 2002, and the hearing on the application began that day.
The defendants moved on July 12, 2002 to dismiss the application on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on the provisions of General Statutes §
If an application for a prejudgment remedy is denied and the plaintiff, within thirty days thereof, does not serve and return to court the writ of summons and complaint for which the prejudgment remedy was requested, or if a date for a hearing upon a prejudgment remedy is scheduled by the clerk and such hearing is not commenced within thirty days thereof, . . . the court shall order the application to be considered as having been withdrawn.
The court holds that General Statues §
This interpretation of the statute is consistent with what the court perceives as the legislative intent to curtail a prejudgment remedy CT Page 10168 applicant from holding the threat of an attachment or garnishment over the head of a defendant without actually prosecuting the application. That is not the case here. While both sides requested postponements there is no evidence that plaintiffs were unnecessarily dilatory. Nor is there any evidence that defendants, who agreed to the postponements were prejudiced. With the exception of the March to early June 2002 period there always was a date set for a hearing. This is the critical distinction from the circumstances in a case relied on by the defendants, Yankee Oil, Ins. v. Carignan, Superior Court, CV 99 69159 (October 19, 1999, Zarella, J) (25 Conn.L.Rptr 557). In that case the court found that "before the hearing commenced" on the scheduled date the parties undertook and completed settlement negotiations and the settlement was entered on the record in open court. No other or continued hearing date was scheduled. After several months one party repudiated the settlement. On the applicant's motion to enforce the settlement the court held there was no framework within which to enforce the settlement. The court determined no case had been started and the prejudgment remedy application, pursuant to Section
For the foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss is denied. Counsel are directed to contact the Civil Case Flow Office to schedule the continuation and completion of the prejudgment remedy application hearing.
ADAMS, J.