PCUW LLC v. Michael Constanti et al. (2013)

ORDER

ORDER REGARDING

07/26/2013 150.00 MOTION FOR ORDER

The foregoing, having been heard by the Court, is hereby:

ORDER DENIED

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS

“[Practice Book] Section 13–23(a) mandates in relevant part that [e]ach matter of which an admission is requested is admitted unless, within thirty days after the filing of the notice required by Section 13–22(b), or within such shorter or longer times as the judicial authority may allow, the party to whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter ․ [A] failure to respond timely to a request for admission means that the matters ought to be answered were conclusively admitted.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  East Haven Builders Supply, Inc. v. Fanton, 80 Conn.App. 734, 744, 837 A.2d 866 (2004).  “Any matter admitted ․ is conclusively established unless the judicial authority on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.   The judicial authority may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved thereby and the party who obtained the admission fails to satisfy the judicial authority that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice such party in maintaining his or her action or defense on the merits.”  Practice Book § 13–24(a).

The defendants have filed a motion for permission to amend the judicial admissions which were previously admitted due to the defendants' failure to timely respond to two sets of Requests for Admissions which were served on the defendants on April 12, 2012.   The court will not set forth factual and procedural background as it has been previously described in the court's memorandum of decision, dated July 17, 2013, re:  motion to strike notice of responses and motion to strike revised answer and cross complaint.

The defendants previously filed a motion seeking a judicial determination that they were not bound by their failure to respond to the requests for admissions.   That motion was denied.   Shortall, J., April 11, 2013.   The current motion seeks essentially the same form of relief.   The court is not inclined to overrule the rulings of another judge in this case.

Moreover, the court finds that the defendants have failed to show that the presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved by the court not permitting the withdrawal or amendment of the defendants' non-responses to the pleadings.

Although the defendants argue that allowing the judicial admissions to stand would be highly prejudicial, Practice Book § 13–24 addresses the prejudice to the party opposing the withdrawal and/or amendment, which the plaintiffs have demonstrated to the court's satisfaction.

Motion to permission to amend judicial admissions is denied.

Swienton, J.

Swienton, Cynthia K., J.