Priscilla Dickman v. State Employee's Retirement Commission et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Court hereby grants the plaintiff's request for reconsideration, but denies the relief sought.

Following this Court's granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration as to the Court's ruling that the defendants, Nancy Wyman and Helen Kemp (hereinafter also “Wyman and Kemp”) were not properly served in their individual capacity.

The original service on these two defendants was made to the Attorney General's office, but that was in their official capacities.   They were not served in their individual capacities.

The plaintiff then on March 1, 2010 had the said defendants served in their individual capacities, in person.   The problem is, however, that the defendants under Connecticut Law are to be served at least six days before the return date, and the return date cannot be changed without the order of a court upon proper motion to do so.   The original return date is January 19, 2010, and the said defendants were not served individually until March 1, 2010 which is long beyond the six days before the return date of January 19, 2010, and, therefore, improper.   Assuming the plaintiff filed a second return date of March 11, 2010, that is a nullity because the return date cannot be changed without permission of a Court.   Accordingly, notwithstanding the service on March 1, 2010 which is too late under Connecticut law does not change the finding that the said defendants were not served individually properly.

Therefore, the Court's ruling as to the said defendants not being served properly in their individual capacities stands.   For this reason and the other reasons specified in this Court's decision of March 23, 2010 the motion to dismiss is confirmed, and the defendants' objection to the request for reconsideration dated April 7, 2010 is sustained.

Rittenband, JTR

Rittenband, Richard M., J.T.R.