Main Street Acquisition Corp. v. Lisa G. Ellsworth (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE:  PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DETERMINE SUFFICIENCY (# 117)

The plaintiff, Main Street Acquisition Corporation, commenced the present action against the defendant, Lisa G. Ellsworth, by filing a summons and complaint on June 1, 2010.   The plaintiff's single-count complaint seeks to collect from the defendant on a credit card debt in the amount of $5,497.36.

The plaintiff filed with the court a notice of service of requests for admission on June 22, 2010.   The defendant filed a notice of compliance with the plaintiff's requests on July 21, 2010.   Thereafter, on February 15, 2011, the plaintiff filed the present motion to determine the sufficiency of the defendant's responses to the plaintiff's requests for admissions pursuant to Practice Book § 13–23(b), along with an affidavit in support thereof.   The plaintiff moved concurrently for sanctions and costs.   The defendant did not oppose the plaintiff's motion.

Practice Book § 13–23(b) authorizes a court to determine the sufficiency of the answer or objection.   The plaintiff argues that the defendant's responses to its requests for admissions “were evasive and improper.”   Specifically, the plaintiff maintains that the defendant's responses to requests two, three, four, nine and ten were nonresponsive inasmuch as the defendant improperly attempted to raise a statute of limitations defense.   The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's response to request eight is insufficient because the response is equivocal.   The plaintiff further contends that the defendant's responses to requests twelve, thirteen and fourteen, “denied for the reasons set forth herein previously,” are ambiguous and unresponsive.   Lastly, the plaintiff argues that the defendant's response to request sixteen, which seeks to determine whether the defendant disputed the charges to her credit card within sixty days in writing, is insufficient because the response attempts to raise a counterclaim for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.

The plaintiff's counsel avers in her affidavit in support that she has made “a bona fide attempt to resolve the parties' differences,” but that she has “been unable to reach an agreement with the defendant's attorney” because the defendant's attorney has failed to reply to her attempts to resolve the issue.

Practice Book § 13–23(a) provides, in part:  “An answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless such party states that he or he has made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable by him or her is insufficient to enable an admission or denial.”   Furthermore, the proper procedural vehicle for raising special defenses is a pleading pursuant to Practice Book § 10–46 or a disclosure of defenses pursuant to Practice Book § 13–19.

After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion that the defendant's responses to the plaintiff's requests numbered two, thee, four, nine and ten are wholly insufficient because they attempt to raise a statute of limitations defense.   Furthermore, the court finds that the defendant's responses to the plaintiff's requests numbered eight, twelve, thirteen and fourteen are insufficient because they are equivocal and intended to mislead.   Lastly, the court finds that the defendant's response to request sixteen is insufficient insofar as it attempts to raise a defense.

For the forgoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion is granted and the defendant is ordered to amend her answers to the requests within two weeks of the date of this ruling;  failure to do so shall result in the matters being deemed “admitted.”

Keegan, Maureen M.

Keegan, Maureen M., J.