Marcello Simonetta v. Wesleyan University (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The court has considered the plaintiff's objection (# 111) to the defendant's request to revise the plaintiff's complaint (# 102) in this employment matter, as to which the defendant filed a request for adjudication, dated June 9, 2010 (# 117).   For the reasons stated below, the objection is sustained.

Practice Book § 10-36, which concerns reasons in a request to revise, provides, “[t]he request to revise shall set forth, for each requested revision, the portion of the pleading sought to be revised, the requested revision, and the reasons therefor, followed by sufficient space in which the party to whom the request is directed can insert an objection and reasons therefor.”  (Emphasis added.)

In his objection, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant seeks over 100 revisions to 85 paragraphs in the three-count complaint, in essence seeking to rewrite it.   At page 3, the plaintiff argues that the defendant “has not set forth the portion of the pleading sought to be revised.   Defendant has only referred to the paragraph or sentence in a particular paragraph.”   In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant has not provided a specific reason for each proposed revision, and has grouped the requests under boiler plate arguments.   The plaintiff contends that his objection should be sustained due to the defendant's lack of compliance with Practice Book § 10-36.

In the request to revise, as to request Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the defendant lists, after “Portions of the Pleading Sought to be Revised,” parts of the complaint, by paragraph number only.   In the other request, No. 3, the defendant lists, for the portion sought to be revised:  “Each Count of the Complaint,” and then, under “Requested Revision,” for each count, lists the paragraphs, again by number, as to which it seeks deletion.

For example, as to request No. 1, page 2, the defendant lists “Paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 45, 46, and 47, as incorporated into all counts.”   Portions of text from some of these paragraphs are quoted in the request thereafter, under “Requested Revisions.”   See defendant's request to revise, pp. 2-3.

Practice Book § 10-36 does not define “set forth.”   Where a Practice Book section does not provide a definition for a phrase, it must be construed “consistent[ly] with its commonly approved meaning[.]”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  State v. Allen, 289 Conn. 550, 573, 958 A.2d 1214 (2008) (citing Black's Law Dictionary (Black's)).   See Lo Sacco v. Young, 210 Conn. 503, 507, 555 A.2d 986 (1989) (same;  citing Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Webster's)).

Webster's, page 2077, in the closest relevant definition, defines “set forth” to mean “to give an account or statement of:  present fully and clearly;  Explain, Describe ․” Black's (9th Ed.2009), page 1496, provides a similar definition.   As to “set forth,” it refers to “set out.”   The definition for “set out” states, “[t]o recite, explain, narrate, or incorporate (facts or circumstances) ․ set out the terms of the contract ․ Also termed set forth.”  (Emphasis in original.)

The language used in Practice Book § 10-36 concerning “set forth” contrasts with that used in Practice Book § 10-3(a), concerning allegations based on statutory grounds, which provides, “[w]hen any claim made in a complaint, cross complaint, special defense, or other pleading is grounded on a statute, the statute shall be specifically identified by its number.”   Thus, Practice Book § 10-3(a) requires reference to a statute by number, as opposed to Practice Book § 10-36, which requires portions of the pleading sought to be revised to be “set forth,” not just listed by number.

An obvious purpose for Practice Book § 10-36's requirement that the portion of the pleading sought to be revised be set forth is to present an organized pleading, with the portion sought to be revised, the requested revision, the reasons therefor, and the objection thereto, if any, set forth all together, one after the other.   Here, where revisions of portions of a count, including particular paragraphs, are sought, merely listing them by number is insufficient.   Doing so does not present them “fully,” and does not “recite” or “explain” them.   See definitions from Webster's and Black's, quoted above.

Since the defendant's request to revise does not comply with Practice Book § 10-36 by setting forth the portion of the pleading sought to be revised, the plaintiff's objection thereto is sustained.   It is so ordered.

BY THE COURT

ROBERT B. SHAPIRO

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Shapiro, Robert B., J.