RMM LLC v. LLC (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The defendant, Jeffrey Namm, has moved (# 118) to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff, RMM Consulting, LLC, on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction because the contract between the parties contains an arbitration clause.

The defendant has not cited any cases for the proposition that the court is without jurisdiction.   This is because The Connecticut Appellate Court has rejected this argument, noting:  “The fact that General Statutes § 52-409 allows a court to enter a stay in a matter involving an arbitration agreement belies the ․ claim, and the trial court's implicit ruling, that an agreement to arbitrate ousts the court of its subject matter jurisdiction.   If the existence of an arbitration agreement in a contract implicated the court's jurisdiction to hear an action, then a court would, accordingly, not have jurisdiction to stay such a matter because, in the absence of jurisdiction, the court may only dismiss a matter.   In short, because the power to order a stay implies that the court has jurisdiction over a matter, the legislature could not have empowered the court to enter a stay in such a matter unless the court has jurisdiction over it.”  Catrini v. Erickson, 113 Conn.App. 195, 197, 967 A.2d 275 (2009).

Since the lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the arbitration clause is the only argument raised by the defendant, the motion to dismiss is denied.¹

BY THE COURT,

John W. Pickard

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The court also notes that a moving party properly raises an arbitration clause by filing a motion to stay and a motion to compel, pursuant to C.G.S. §§ 52-409 and 52-410, and by showing that he or she is ready and willing to proceed with arbitration..  FN1. The court also notes that a moving party properly raises an arbitration clause by filing a motion to stay and a motion to compel, pursuant to C.G.S. §§ 52-409 and 52-410, and by showing that he or she is ready and willing to proceed with arbitration.

Pickard, John W., J.