Aimee Held v. LLC (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO CITE IN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT AND AMEND THE COMPLAINT (# 116)

On November 2, 2007, a violent and deadly collision occurred on Interstate 95, between exits 75 and 76 in East Lyme, Connecticut.   A tanker trailer owned by the defendant, Northeast Carriers, LLC, was allegedly operating in a northerly direction, when it crossed over the center median and into the southbound traffic lanes of Interstate 95.   The tanker trailer collided with numerous vehicles in the southbound lanes.   As a result of this collision, there are currently eight law suits pending within the New London Judicial District.¹  In each of the cases in which the plaintiffs seek damages for personal injury, the plaintiffs have sought the permission of the court to file an amended complaint so as to name Saveway Petroleum, Inc. (Saveway) as an additional defendant.

Saveway appeared specially and has filed an objection to each of the motions to cite in Saveway as a party defendant to these claims.

On April 27, 2010, the court held a consolidated hearing with regard to the motions to cite in Saveway as a party defendant.   All parties agreed that the issues presented by the motions and the objections were similar in each of the cases and that a consolidated hearing was appropriate.   Prior to the hearing, the parties had filed extensive briefs on the issues as an aid to the court.   A copy of this decision will be filed in each file where a motion to cite in Saveway has been filed.

The plaintiffs argue that pursuant to Practice Book § 9-6,² Practice Book § 9-22,³ and General Statutes § 52-102,⁴ the court has the authority, and/or must allow them, to amend their complaints and to cite in Saveway as an additional party defendant.   They assert that their motions are timely filed and will not cause prejudice to any other parties.   They assert that Saveway is a necessary party to this litigation.   The gravamen of the complaint against Saveway is that at all times relevant to this litigation, Northeast Carriers, LLC (Northeast) was an agent and instrumentality under the control and domination of Saveway.   The complaints allege that Saveway, as the alter ego, is vicariously liable for the conduct of Northeast.   The proposed amended complaints also make direct claims against Saveway on theories of negligence and recklessness.

Saveway asserts that the motion to cite them in ought to be denied by the court because the motions have not been filed in a timely manner.   Additionally, Saveway argues that Saveway and Northeast are two separate and independent businesses and that there is no factual basis to support a piercing the corporate veil between these related but distinct corporate entities.

A.

“The decision whether to grant a motion for the addition of a party to pending legal proceedings rests generally in the sound discretion of the trial court ․ It must be kept in mind, however, that the rules of intervention should be liberally construed, in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and settle all related controversies in one action.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Washington Trust Company v. Smith, 241 Conn. 734, 747, 699 A.2d 73 (1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 279 Conn. 447, 455, 904 A.2d 137 (2006).

In considering a motion to cite in, the trial court must consider the timeliness of the application as well as the prejudice of any other party and whether the applicant's presence would enable the court to make a complete determination of the issues.   See A. Secondino & Son, Inc. v. LoRicco, 19 Conn.App. 8, 14, 561 A.2d 142 (1989).   Generally, courts have not considered the merits of the proposed complaint when considering whether or not to allow a party to be cited into the litigation.   See Martin v. O'Meara, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. 97 160364 (March 18, 1998, Karazin, J.) (21 Conn. L. Rptr. 537);  Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Alan D. Loeser & Co., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV 000378348 (August 8, 2001, Skolnick, J.) (30 Conn. L. Rptr. 163).

B.

In evaluating the motion before the court, this court has the benefit of the appearance and arguments of the proposed defendant.   On its behalf, Saveway asserts that these complaints have not been filed in a timely fashion.   It notes that the accident underlying this suit occurred on November 2, 2007, and the first motion to cite in the proposed defendant Saveway was filed on or about November 16, 2009.   It makes a common sense argument that the motion to cite in is filed more than two years after the accident and, thus, after the expiration of the statute of limitations contained in General Statutes § 52-584.⁵

Safeway also relies upon the case of Storti v. Crystal Mall Associates Ltd Partnership, Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Docket No. CV 524191 (August 10, 1993, Teller, J.) (9 Conn. L. Rptr. 552), for the proposition that some courts have resolved a clear issue on the motion to cite in.   The Storti case involved a situation where the defendants sought to bring in as apportionment defendants three individuals who allegedly assaulted the plaintiff on the defendants' premises.   The court held it was compelled to deny the motion to cite in because General Statutes § 52-572h(c) allowed apportionment complaints to be filed against another party whose negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries.

This case presents a different scenario than the Storti court confronted.   While a statute of limitations defense may serve to bar a stale claim, generally this issue is not decided on a motion to cite in or a motion to strike.   These procedural vehicles do not allow a court to reach some of the substantive or factual issues that must be resolved before determining the merits of the statute of limitations defense.   The court notes the plaintiffs' complaints assert that Northeast is the alter ego of Saveway.   Northeast received timely notice of the plaintiffs' claims.   The trial court may well impute such notice to Saveway if it is persuaded that Saveway dominates or controls Northeast.

Further, the plaintiffs argue that they have filed their claims against Saveway within two years of when they discovered a basis for asserting that Northeast was the alter ego of Saveway.   One of the plaintiffs has asserted that the first notice the plaintiffs had of the relationship between Saveway and Northeast was during an prejudgment hearing conducted on November 19, 2008.   As such, the plaintiffs claim that their allegations to pierce the corporate veil should be governed by the second section of § 52-584, which would allow an action to be brought within two years from the date when the injury was first sustained or discovered.

The court is not persuaded that it should address the merits of any statute of limitations argument that Saveway might have at this stage of the litigation.   If the court grants the motions to cite in, then the prospective defendant Saveway will be able to assert any and all legal defenses to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in this action.

C.

The second argument made by Saveway is that Northeast is in fact not the alter ego of Saveway.   This court will not address the merits of this claim in this procedural posture.   The normal litigation process will allow the plaintiffs to shoulder their burden of proof on their claims.   The normal litigation process will also provide the defendant with the full panoply of procedural and substantive vehicles to assert its factual and legal defenses as to how it has conducted its corporate business.

D.

The court finds that the plaintiffs have moved to cite in Saveway in a timely manner.   It does not appear that the granting of this motion will unduly delay this litigation.   Assuming for the purposes of this motion that the plaintiffs will be able to establish that Saveway is the alter ego of Northeast, Saveway is a necessary party to this litigation.   For the above reasons, the motions to cite in an additional defendant and to amend the complaint are granted.   The objections filed by Saveway are overruled.   The clerk is ordered to provide an appropriate summons for the formal service and citing in of the proposed defendant Saveway Petroleum, Inc.

The Court

Cosgrove, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Dugas, Docket No. CV 08 4008939;  Clough v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 5006598;  Mariani v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 5008847;  Clark v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 5009680;  Held v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 5009769;  Dugas v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 6000685;  Lancer Ins. Co. v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 6000698;  and Geico v. McKeever, Docket No. CV 09 6001789..  FN1. United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Dugas, Docket No. CV 08 4008939;  Clough v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 5006598;  Mariani v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 5008847;  Clark v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 5009680;  Held v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 5009769;  Dugas v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 6000685;  Lancer Ins. Co. v. Northeast Carriers, LLC, Docket No. CV 08 6000698;  and Geico v. McKeever, Docket No. CV 09 6001789.

FN2. Practice Book § 9-6.-Interested Persons as DefendantsAny person may be made a defendant who has or claims an interest in the controversy, or any part thereof, adverse to the plaintiff, or whom it is necessary, for a complete determination or settlement of any question involved therein, to make a party..  FN2. Practice Book § 9-6.-Interested Persons as DefendantsAny person may be made a defendant who has or claims an interest in the controversy, or any part thereof, adverse to the plaintiff, or whom it is necessary, for a complete determination or settlement of any question involved therein, to make a party.

FN3. Practice Book § 9-22.-Motion to Cite in New PartiesAny motion to cite in or admit new parties must comply with Section 11-1 and state briefly the grounds upon which it is made..  FN3. Practice Book § 9-22.-Motion to Cite in New PartiesAny motion to cite in or admit new parties must comply with Section 11-1 and state briefly the grounds upon which it is made.

FN4. Section 52-102.   Joinder of persons with interest adverse to plaintiff and of necessary persons.Upon motion made by any party or nonparty to a civil action, the person named in the party's motion or the nonparty so moving, as the case may be, (1) may be made a party by the court if that person has or claims an interest in the controversy, or any part thereof, adverse to the plaintiff, or (2) shall be made a party by the court if that person is necessary for a complete determination or settlement of any question involved therein;  provided no person who is immune from liability shall be made a defendant in the controversy..  FN4. Section 52-102.   Joinder of persons with interest adverse to plaintiff and of necessary persons.Upon motion made by any party or nonparty to a civil action, the person named in the party's motion or the nonparty so moving, as the case may be, (1) may be made a party by the court if that person has or claims an interest in the controversy, or any part thereof, adverse to the plaintiff, or (2) shall be made a party by the court if that person is necessary for a complete determination or settlement of any question involved therein;  provided no person who is immune from liability shall be made a defendant in the controversy.

FN5. Section 52-584.   Limitation of action for injury to person or property caused by negligence, misconduct or malpractice.No action to recover damages for injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by negligence, or by reckless or wanton misconduct, ․ shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, and except that no such action may be brought more than three years from the date of the act or omission complained of, except that a counterclaim may be interposed in any such action any time before the pleadings in such action are finally closed..  FN5. Section 52-584.   Limitation of action for injury to person or property caused by negligence, misconduct or malpractice.No action to recover damages for injury to the person, or to real or personal property, caused by negligence, or by reckless or wanton misconduct, ․ shall be brought but within two years from the date when the injury is first sustained or discovered or in the exercise of reasonable care should have been discovered, and except that no such action may be brought more than three years from the date of the act or omission complained of, except that a counterclaim may be interposed in any such action any time before the pleadings in such action are finally closed.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.