Edward Gaudio v. D.C.S.R., Inc. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This case began with the plaintiff's notice of application for a prejudgment remedy, dated July 9, 2010, and proposed writ, summons and complaint, which had a return of service dated July 20, 2010.   On November 24, 2010, the plaintiff, citing Practice Book §§ 9–22 and 10–60, filed a document entitled “REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT and MOTION TO CITE IN ADDITIONAL PARTY DEFENDANT.”   The plaintiff's request and motion to cite in Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc. carried only the following language:

“Defendant Brown & Brown, Inc. has, in response to a certain subpoena issued by Plaintiff, provided information and documentation which reveals and substantiates Plaintiff's claims against Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc. and which also reveals additional causes of action against the other Defendants.

“WHEREFORE, the undersigned moves that the court grant leave to file the Amended Complaint attached hereto and that the Plaintiff's motion to cite in Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc. be cited in and properly served with the Amended Complaint.”

Brown & Brown, Inc. objects to the motion to cite in Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., claiming that the plaintiff has failed to file a memorandum of law with its motion as required by PracticeBook § 11–10.¹

The plaintiff admits that no memorandum was filed but claims it is not necessary if the other parties are aware of the issues in the case.   This court disagrees.   See Yoshu, LLC v. Ward, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV 09 5033580 (August 6, 2010, Sheldon, J.) (“Situations where the movant provides a memorandum of law prior to oral argument are factually distinguishable from those where the movant fails to submit any memorandum at all”).   Therefore, the motion to cite in is denied.   Accordingly, the request to file an amended complaint is denied because it is premised upon the granting of the motion to cite in.

BY THE COURT

Jack W. Fischer, Judge

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The other named defendants filed objections on the ground that the plaintiff improperly combined a request to amend with a motion to cite in..  FN1. The other named defendants filed objections on the ground that the plaintiff improperly combined a request to amend with a motion to cite in.

Fischer, Jack W., J.