LLC v. O & G Industries, Inc. et al. (2012)

RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS # 120 & # 122

The apportionment defendants, URS Corporation AES (URS), # 120, and Gilbane Building Company (Gilbane), # 122, have filed motions to dismiss the direct claims asserted against them by the plaintiff, Eastern Energy Services, LLC (Eastern) in its amended complaint dated November 23, 2011.   After the defendant/apportionment plaintiff, Tai Soo Kim Partners, LLC (Tai Soo Kim), filed its apportionment complaints, Eastern filed its direct action against URS and Gilbane, pursuant to General Statutes § 52–102b(d).

The apportionment defendants maintain that the court does not have personal jurisdiction to adjudicate Eastern's direct complaint because Tai Soo Kim's apportionment complaint was not served within 120 days of Eastern's original complaint, as required by § 52–102b.   URS and Gilbane have previously filed motions to dismiss, # 111 and # 114 respectively, Tai Soo Kim's apportionment complaints on the ground that the complaints were not timely served.

The court has concluded that the apportionment complaints were timely served upon the apportionment defendants, under the provisions of General Statutes § 52–593a.   See ruling on motions # 111 & # 114.   Since the apportionment complaints were timely served, the court does not lack jurisdiction over Eastern's direct action against apportionment defendants.

The motions are denied.

Domnarski, J.

Domnarski, Edward S., J.