Shawn West v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al. (2012)

Memorandum of Decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion to Reargue for Good Causes (No.114)

On February 21, 2013 this court denied plaintiff's Motion for Default (Order, No. 110.86) and sustained defendant's Objection to Motion for Default (Order, No. 112.86).   The claimed ground for the motion for default was that the defendant had failed to answer interrogatories or comply with requests for production served on October 14, 2012.   The court's rulings were based on certificates of compliance (Nos. 108 and 111) filed by defendant, attesting to prior compliance with the requests for production, and answers to all interrogatories except those as to which there were outstanding objections.

No motion to reargue was filed within the mandatory twenty-day deadline of Practice Book § 11–12(a).   The motion now before the court seeks an extension of time to file a motion to reargue.  Practice Book § 11–12(b) permits a judicial extension of the twenty-day deadline, but only pursuant to a “motion for extension ․ filed before the expiration of the twenty day time period in subsection (a).”   This motion was filed sixty-one days after the court's February 21 ruling.   Plaintiff asks the court for equitable relief from the twenty-day deadline on the grounds that (1) he is self-represented and has been unable to retain counsel, and (2)” ․ he was unaware of the twenty (20) day time period due to lack of Connecticut Civil Law materials ․ and was without the necessary funds to purchase them.”   He claims he became aware of the twenty-day time period when he found a 2002 Edition of the Connecticut Practice Book at the public library after the deadline had lapsed.

The motion for extension of time is denied for three reasons:  First, because it is untimely under Practice Book § 11–12(b).  Second because Practice Book § 11–12(b) permits an extension of the deadline only upon a “showing of good cause.”   Plaintiff has offered no explanation whatsoever why he was unable to move to reargue during the twenty-day period following the February 21, 2013 rulings.   Even if this motion had been timely filed it would have to be denied for total lack of any showing of good cause for an extension, whether or not the plaintiff was aware of the deadline.   Second, plaintiff's claimed reason of not having access to the Connecticut Practice Book does not ring true.   The motion for default filed by the plaintiff on January 29, 2013 expressly states that it is based on “the provisions of the Connecticut Practice Book, Chapter 13.”   The plaintiff obviously had access to the Practice Book on January 29.   Furthermore, he had cost-free access to the Practice Book (2013 Edition) at the Stamford Courthouse Law Library, open daily during court hours, and staffed by two librarians always willing to show self-represented parties how to research a legal question or issue or locate a volume.   Law Library assistance is also available by telephone or online through the “Ask a Librarian” program.   He also had access to the Stamford Courthouse Court Service Center on the fourth floor of the courthouse where a staff member would have directed him to the Practice Book. The Practice Book is also readily available at all times on the Judicial Branch website (www.jud.ct.gov ) which provides assistance and videos to self-represented parties through its “Frequently Asked Questions” tab under the heading “Self–Help” where it is stated:  “You must follow the same rules as lawyers.   Connecticut Court rules are described in the Connecticut Practice Book. It is available on this website at ‘Court Rules,’ at all Court Service Centers, and in all courthouse law libraries.”

“While we are aware it is the established policy of the Connecticut courts to be solicitous of pro-se litigants and when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties to construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the pro-se party ․ we are also aware that although we allow pro-se litigants some latitude, the right of self representation provides no attendant license not to comply with the relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.”   Worth v. Korta, 132 Conn.App. 154, 157 (2011), cert. denied, 304 Conn. 905 (2012).   This case does not involve any construction of the rules of practice.   It involves a straight-forward basic and unambiguous deadline that the plaintiff obligated himself to become familiar with when he undertook to file a lawsuit in this court, acting as his own attorney.  “The court recognizes that the plaintiff is proceeding pro so.   Nevertheless plaintiff is bound by Connecticut Practice Book Section 11–1 ․ “ Hill v. Hill, Superior Court, Judicial District of Fairfield, Docket No. FA91 037 42 54S (October 9, 2001, Dewey, J.), 2001 Ct.Sup. 14049.  “[N]otwithstanding leniency accorded pro se litigants, we cannot, and will not, entirely disregard the established rules of procedure.”  (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)   Hanton v. Walker, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Docket No. CV09–5029721 (March 29, 2012, Keegan, J.), 2010 Ct.Sup. 7841.

Order

For the foregoing reasons the plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion to Reargue for Good Causes is denied.

Alfred J. Jennings, Jr., Judge Trial Referee

Jennings, Alfred J., J.T.R.