LLC v. LLC (2010)

ORDER RE MOTION TO LIMIT PJR and/or MOTION TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO POST A BOND IN CONNECTION WITH ITS APPLICATION FOR A PREJUDGMENT REMEDY (# 102)

As to the defendants' motion that the court limit any attachment pursuant to the prejudgment remedy ordered, the statutes do not provide for the consideration by the court of the effect of the issuance of a prejudgment remedy on the defendant's business when deciding whether to grant an application for a prejudgment remedy.   Although the statutes allow the court to consider whether property sought to be subjected to a prejudgment remedy is exempt from execution, the defendants have not established that its account receivables are subject to an exemption.   In any event, a hearing on a prejudgment remedy application is not the occasion to test the plaintiff's rights against a garnishee.  William M. Raveis & Associates, Inc. v. Kimball, 186 Conn. 329, 334 (1987).

As to the defendants' motion that the plaintiff post a bond, the statute requires the court to consider the nature of the property subject to the prejudgment remedy and the potential harm to defendants' interest in the property the prejudgment remedy might cause, in determining whether to require that the plaintiff post a bond.   Here the assets of the defendants' subject to attachment, and, in fact, represented to be the only assets of the defendants, are accounts receivables and bank accounts.   Such assets are not subject to dissipation nor is the defendants' interest in them in danger, if they are simply held subject to a prejudgment attachment, since no funds will be paid out of these assets unless and until a final judgment is rendered against the defendants in this matter.

Jane S. Scholl, J.

Scholl, Jane S., J.