Sylvester Traylor, Administrator of the Estate of Roberta Mae Traylor et al v. Bassam Awwam, M.D. et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION MOTIONS FOR NONSUIT [429, 431]

Now before the court are two motions for nonsuit filed by the defendants.   Defendants' Motion for Nonsuit, September 20, 2010[429];  Defendants' Motion for Nonsuit, September 21, 2010[431].   Both motions are directed against the Estate only.

In the September 20 Motion for Nonsuit [429], the basis for the nonsuit is the Estate's “failure to comply with the order of this court to have representation by counsel.”   Defendants' Motion for Nonsuit, September 20, 2010[429], p. 1.

Defendants state that on December 21, 2009 the court ordered that “the pro se plaintiff [Sylvester Traylor] was not permitted to represent the estate.   The court further ordered that the Estate's case would be dismissed unless an attorney entered an appearance for the Estate on or before April 21, 2010.” (# 354.00.)

Defendants go on:

“At approximately 4:30 p.m. on April 21, 2010, the law firm of Hall and the Johnson filed an appearance on behalf of both the Estate and Mr. Traylor, individually.   Attorney Hall recently filed a Motion to Withdraw (motion # 412.00) as counsel for the Estate.   Prior to that motion being filed, Mr. Traylor in filings with this court (motion # 403.00) represented that he discharged Attorney Hall as of August 11, 2010.   He filed with the court an affidavit to evidence the firing of counsel.   Mr. Traylor has also requested that the court extend time parameters to plead to accommodate his new attorney that would be filing an appearance on September 5, 2010 (# 395.00).”   Defendants' Motion for Nonsuit, September 20, 2010[429], pp. 1-2.

Hall Johnson LLC's eleventh hour appearance on April 21, 2010 saved the Estate's case from dismissal at that time.

Apparently, the relationship between Sylvester Traylor and Hall Johnson LLC since April 21, 2010, has been less than harmonious.

Hall Johnson LLC's September 7 Motion to Withdraw [412] was granted on September 20, 2010.   Sylvester Traylor did not object. [412.20.]

As of September 20, 2010 and since, Sylvester Traylor, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Mae Traylor and the Estate of Robert Mae Traylor are non-appearing due to the fact that they are unrepresented in this matter.

What defendants are asking for is a disciplinary nonsuit for the Administrator's and the Estate's violation of a court order.   The court has not issued any order explicitly stating that the Estate must “have representation by counsel at all times.”   Defendants have not cited any such order.   It is true the Estate's case is ripe for dismissal.   But this is because of the law and not any court order or orders.   It is certainly implicit in the proceedings that dismissal is warranted because of the non-appearing status of the Administrator and the Estate.

An order of the court must be sufficiently clear and specific to allow a party to determine with reasonable certainty what it is required to do.   Millbrook Owners Association, Inc. v. Hamilton Standard et al., 257 Conn. 1, 38 (Vertefeuille, J., dissenting) (2001).

What defendants suggest is that the court ordered that the Estate be represented at all times.   This may be implicit in the court's orders.   But the court entered no such order.   The September 20 Motion for Nonsuit [429] cannot be granted.

The September 21 Motion for Nonsuit [431] is functionally the same as the September 20 Motion for Nonsuit [429] and for the same reason cannot be granted.

The defendants' Motions for Nonsuit [429, 431] are denied.

Parker, J.T.R.

Parker, Thomas F., J.T.R.