Jeffrey Ross v. Joseph Spaziante (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS TO REARGUE

The plaintiffs filed the present action seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as the result of a motor vehicle accident.   In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that prior to the accident, the at fault driver was a patron at several establishments, including Leffingwells Martini Bar at Wombi Rock (Leffingwells), a bar in the Mohegan Sun Casino Resorts in Uncasville, Connecticut.   In its November 1, 2011 decision, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' statutory and common-law reckless service of alcohol claims against the defendants, Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (MTGA) and Gary S. Crowder, the duly licensed permittee and the duly licensed backer and/or owner of Leffingwells, respectively, on the grounds that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity.   On November 21, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reargue the court's decision, claiming that the court overlooked the plaintiffs' principal argument that, pursuant to Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713, 103 S.Ct. 3291, 77 L.Ed.2d 961 (1983), the defendants are not protected by tribal sovereign immunity in the liquor area.   The defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion on November 29, 2011.¹

“[T]he purpose of a reargument is ․ to demonstrate to the court that there is some decision or some principle of law which would have a controlling effect, and which has been overlooked, or that there has been a misapprehension of facts ․ It also may be used to address ․ claims of law that the [movant] claimed were not addressed by the court ․ [A] motion to reargue [however] is not to be used as an opportunity to have a second bite of the apple.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Chapman Lumber, Inc. v. Tager, 288 Conn. 69, 94 n.28, 952 A.2d 1 (2008).

Upon review, the court concludes that the issues raised by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss were not overlooked in the court's prior decision.   It is evident that the court considered Rice v. Rehner, supra, 463 U.S. 713 and its progeny in determining that the defendants have tribal sovereign immunity in the liquor area, and further, that such tribal sovereign immunity has not been waived in the present case.   The court remains persuaded that its original analysis of the issues presented was sound.   Accordingly, the court hereby denies the plaintiffs' request to reargue.

Cosgrove, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. For reasons that cannot be explained other than by human error on the court's part, the court was unaware until recently reminded by counsel of the pendency of this request for reargument.   The court apologizes to counsel and their clients for its tardy consideration of this motion..  FN1. For reasons that cannot be explained other than by human error on the court's part, the court was unaware until recently reminded by counsel of the pendency of this request for reargument.   The court apologizes to counsel and their clients for its tardy consideration of this motion.

Cosgrove, Emmet L., J.