DocketNumber: No. CV-01-0276094S
Citation Numbers: 2003 Conn. Super. Ct. 3981-a
Judges: GRAHAM, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/7/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On July 5, 2001 Balogh filed a motion seeking permission to amend his complaint and cite in an additional party, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI), which was granted on July 23, 2001, and assigned a return date of August 21, 2001, by the court, Booth, J. On August 13, 2001, Balogh filed that amended complaint, which added two additional counts against BIPI, also sounding in negligence and recklessness. The amended complaint, however, was mistakenly assigned a separate docket number, CV 01 0277949 instead of being placed in docket number CV-01-0276094. Thereafter, until May 28, 2002, two court files were maintained. On that date, the court, Gilardi, J., granted Balogh's motion to consolidate, ordered all papers "placed into the file containing the original action, CV-01-0276094" and dismissed the erroneously created file, CV 01 0277949.1
On July 26, 2001 BIC filed a two-count apportionment complaint against F.J. Dahill Company (Dahill), and Balogh's Painting Restoration Company (Balogh Painting), respectively. Balogh filed a motion to strike count one and a motion for summary judgment as to count two of BIC's apportionment complaint.
BIPI also filed an apportionment complaint on January 22, 2002, seeking apportionment from Dahill, Balogh Painting and, in a third count, Andrew Mezzi.2 Service of this complaint was made on Mezzi on December 19, CT Page 3981-b 2001. On March 7, 2002, the apportionment defendant, Dahill, filed a motion to strike count one of the BIPI apportionment complaint. On March 19, 2002 Balogh filed a motion to strike counts one, two and three and a motion for summary judgment as to count two, of BIPI's apportionment complaint.
On March 19, 2002 the court, Skolnick, J., struck the first count and granted summary judgment against BIC on the second count of BIC's apportionment complaint. On April 8, 2002, the court, Skolnick, J., granted Dahill's motion to strike count one of BIPI's apportionment complaint. But on May 14, 2002, the court, Skolnick, J., denied Balogh's motion to strike addressed to BIPI's apportionment complaint.
Balogh moved to reargue said motion on June 5, 2002. On September 3, 2002, the court, Skolnick, J., vacated the denial of May 14, ruling that the March 19, 2002 decision as to BIC's apportionment complaint also controlled as to counts one and two of BIPI's apportionment complaint. The court also ordered reargument as to count three of BIPI's apportionment complaint, addressed to Mezzi.
After oral argument was heard as to Balogh's motion to strike count three of BIPI's apportionment complaint, further briefing and oral argument was ordered by the court, Graham, J., sua sponte, as to whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over Mezzi.
The issue of whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction over BIPI's apportionment complaint can, of course, be raised by this court sua sponte. See Harvey v. Tarr, Superior Court, judicial district of Windham at Putnam, Docket No. CV 01 0066083 (February 19, 2002, Foley, J.) (
The court must address whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over BIPI's apportionment complaint before it can rule on Balogh's motion to strike count three of the same. "[O]nce the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, [it] must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented . . . and the court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Community Collaborative of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Ganim,
General Statutes §
The original complaint, that of Balogh against BIC, had a return date of March 13, 2001. Mezzi was served with the apportionment complaint on December 19, 2001, more than nine months later. The question, in a nutshell, is whether that service violated General Statutes §
The initial inquiry must be whether the 120-day time limit of §
As detailed in a recent decision, Travelers Property Casualty Co. v.Cormier Construction, Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket No. CV 01 0278215 (February 14, 2003, Graham, J.) (
BIPI has argued that the 120 days should be calculated, not from the initial complaint of March 7, 2001, but from the subsequent amended complaint which first made BIPI a party. That amended complaint had a return date of August 21, 2001, and Mezzi was served within 120 days of that date.
"As to the question of whether the initial complaint, or a later complaint adding the defendant seeking to apportion, begins the 120-day period, I find the reasoning of three superior court decisions persuasive. I am persuaded by these superior court opinions that the 120-day time limit is triggered by the initial complaint in the file, so that the apportionment complaint at issue here is untimely. In NationwideInsurance Enterprises v. A G Development, LLC, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport, Docket No. CV 99 0362565 (July 23, 2001, Stevens, J.) (
Finally, BIPI argues that because the amended complaint of August 2001 was mistakenly assigned a separate docket number by the clerk's office, it became an original complaint, triggering a new 120-day apportionment period. The court rejects this argument. The original complaint was and remains the complaint of March 7, 2001. The record is clear that the complaint of August 2001 was an amended complaint, subsequent to the original complaint of March 2001, specifically authorized by court order and part of the same action that was initiated in March 2001. A mere filing error by a clerk cannot undo the reality that this was not plaintiff's original complaint. As BIPI stated in its motion to consolidate, dated March 22, 2002, "these two cases are really one case."
Because the apportionment complaint of BIPI was not served within 120 days from the return date of the original complaint, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it, and it is dismissed. The motion to strike the third count of such apportionment complaint is moot.
James Graham Superior Court Judge