DocketNumber: No. CV-99-0592155-S
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 14032, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 563
Judges: BOOTH, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 10/22/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
At this time, neither party has filed for arbitration. Rather, the plaintiff, Carty, initiated this action by applying for a prejudgment remedy pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-278 et seq.
While Judge Satter is perhaps correct on the jurisdictional question, the appropriateness of granting the prejudgment remedy is thrown into serious question by the Appellate Court decision in Taylor v. Synergy Production Limited,
"When the court granted Synergy's stay of the action pending arbitration, the hearing on the prejudgment remedy was stayed as well. The fact that his case is stayed merely postpones the disposition of the prejudgment remedy but does not terminate it." [Citations omitted.]
In addition, this Court notes that the legislature has provided a specific remedy allowing orders pendente lite in arbitration actions. This remedy is found in §
In the matter before the Court the plaintiff admits that he is bound to arbitrate this dispute. He has brought an application for prejudgment remedy notwithstanding the fact that he has agreed to arbitration and is virtually certain that his lawsuit will be stayed. He has chosen not to avail himself of the opportunity to request pendente lite orders pursuant to
For the reasons stated above, this Court stays the civil action and stays the request for a prejudgment remedy.
By,
Kevin E. Booth, J.